This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article on hold. Once the issues below have been dealt with, it can be promoted. Below is how the article compares with the six good article criteria:
1. Well written?: Mostly, some issues below.
2. Factually accurate?:✓Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: This is my main concern. I've provided a few pointers below, but I'm sure there are plenty more sources out there that could be searched for information. The description seems to be a little sparse- perhaps it could be expanded?
4. Neutral point of view?:✓Pass
5. Article stability?✓Pass
Not a bad article, by any means, but does need some work.— J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
"A. Pilát & A. Dermek."- Wikilinks? Full names? Why the & rather than "and"?(old mistake. fixed)
Why are the first and last paragraphs of the description separate? They seem to cover similar ground. Could they not be merged?(yes. done)
No mention of the pores? The mycomorphbox says that they are adnexed, but there is no mention of them in the prose.
"with Scots pine in the U.K." "U.K." is the country, so it needs another full stop/period. Alternatively, "Scots pine in Britain."(done)
There is no thorough addressing of where it is actually found- there's a casual mention of it "possibly" being in the U.S. in the lead, but this isn't discussed in the main body. Further, I gather it is found in Europe from the countries mentioned and the category- it would be good if this could be made explicit somewhere.
"Ts. Hinkova (1986). Нашите Гъби. Zemizdat (Bulgaria)." ISBN, or other identifier?
(this is the dilemma we have for many species, in that the information on range is often obscure. Thus the western north american are another species, but there is no mention of whether it occurs in eastern north america in the audubon guide or other books. An interesting paper here gives it as a mexican mushroom, but given this is 2003, I have no idea whether this is the same as pinophilus or the new NW US species (arrgh)!). I will see what else I can find)
Some more information about the alternative specific names, both in the lead and taxonomy section, would be good.
According to Phillips, Roger (1981). Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Europe. London: Pan Books. p. 194. ISBN0330264419., the authority for Boletus pinicola is (Vitt.) Venturi, while for B. edulis var pinicola, the authority is Vitt.
Hi, just wanted to add a few comments. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
a common name is the "Pinewood King Bolete"(added)
wikilink subspecies and form in the lead (good points, esp. form. done)
"var." and "f." in the taxobox synonym list shouldn't be italicized (done)
"The spores are cylindric-ellipsoid, smooth, with drops..." specify that they're oil drops (done)
references could use a bit of formatting for internal consistency (eg., refs #2 and #5 needs parentheses around the years, ref#3 has double period after title, refs #10 and #11 need page #'s)
regarding edibility, B. pinophilus is known to be a mercury bioaccumulator, so one might want to say something about being careful where these mushrooms are gathered for consumption. (done and reffed)
^ abFalandysz J, Bielawski L, Kannan K, Gucia M, Lipka K, Brzostowski A. (2002). "Mercury in wild mushrooms and underlying soil substrate from the great lakes land in Poland". "Journal of Environmental Monitoring" 4(4): 473–476.
^Cocchi L, Vescovi L, Petrini LE, Petrini O. (2006). "Heavy metals in edible mushrooms in Italy". Food Chemistry98(2): 277–284.
I looked for the page numbers for those references, and I'm unable to find the books anywhere (I even checked in the local library). Not sure how to address this. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 05:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a big deal for GA level. The Jordan book was online so I added the page # for that; wouldn't worry about the others though. Sasata (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Try contacting the person who originally added them as a source, but, as Sasata says, I wouldn't worry too much about it. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've passed the article, as I feel that much work has been done, and the article is currently in a good shape. It's by no means perfect, but this is a GA review, not a FAC. I'm leaving the above comments, as there are still things there that can be worked with if anyone is interested in improving the article further. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)