The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another pored mushroom...though this one has piggybacked pine plantations around the world and doesn't taste as nice as others. We liked buffing it and have scraped the bottom of the scholarly barrel. Interesting mushroom. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Is a wikicup nomination for one of us (i.e. me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive bit of research and enjoyable prose. Great choice of illustrations. Just the smallest of possible comments:

• "The fungus grows in coniferous forests in its native range" feels repetitive; maybe drop the "coniferous forests" a the top, in the second sentence?

yep, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "naturalized, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations with ..."--> makes it a bit complicated, may I suggest to start a new sentence ("It forms .."

duly split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not keen on the hyphens in "chestnut-, rusty, olive-, or dark brown"

agree we can lose chestnut's hyphen...however removing olives' means we're saying "olive" not "olive-brown" (which is the colour we're trying to convey) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia could benefit from linking

they'd both link to the same place - Cystidium - and we'd be pinged for duplicate linking Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "microscopic examination of mushroom tissues is not possible" --> intriguing. Do you perhaps mean you can't tell them apart looking at them under microscope?

well, not if they are powdered as there are no cells...the sentence starts with "powdered" in it - do you think we need to mention "powdered" here again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me see if I understand you correctly: Because it is powdered, there are no cells anymore, and therefore, yes it is possible to examine powder under a microscope, but you can't tell whether the stuff is from one species or two. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

correct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, may I suggest you rephrase to something like "a fraudulent practice that is difficult to detect by microscope because the cells are no longer in tact."? Edwininlondon (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Sasata (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear. Thanks. I changed my status to Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

• "The fungus was reclassified in (and became the type species of) the genus Suillus" Is in the right word, here? Reclassified to or reclassified as, perhaps?

• Changed to "reclassified as". Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Suillus luteus (L.:Fr.) Gray" On my screen, this was on a line-break- perhaps non-breaking spaces would be useful.

• Added a nowrap template. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't link at your first mention of S. granulatus, but you do at the second mention.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "were transferred to the family Suillaceae from Boletaceae in 1997" Presumably Suillaceae was created for the genus; "transfer" suggests (though doesn't strictly imply, I admit!) that the target was already there to be transferred to.

• Now it's "were transferred from the Boletaceae to the newly circumscribed family Suillaceae in 1997." Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "In Ecuador, Pinus radiata plantations were planted extensively around Cotopaxi National Park, and Suillus luteus boletes appear in abundance year-round, with a 1985 field study estimating 3000–6000 mushrooms per hectare—unlike the species' seasonal nature elsewhere." This sentence still doesn't quite work for me, but I'm struggling to come up with an alternative phrasing.

• I've tried an alternate wording ... does it read any better? Sasata (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the trait to tolerate otherwise toxic levels" I think this should be "a trait to tolerate otherwise toxic levels" or "the trait of tolerance towards otherwise toxic levels"

• I agree, tweaked. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• " their fungal associates—[54] are" Is there something in MOS about this? Before the dash seems much more natural, and prevents you having to add a space that would not be there otherwise.

• citation now before the punctuation. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "pest" a little colloquial? Would "parasite" not be better?

• It's not "pest" in the colloquial sense ("an annoying thing"), but a standard definition "a destructive insect or other animal that attacks crops, food, livestock, etc." and was used in the source ... see also pest (organism). Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (I confess that it's a word I hate for various reasons, but...) I wonder whether it's appropriate to bring in this human point of view ("oh, it's damaging our crops!") in what was previously a rather simple explanation of an ecological relationship ("This thing eats this thing"). I'm certainly not going to push the matter, and leave it up to you two. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm worried about introducing a technical meaning not intended by the author. According to our article on parasitism, the host is harmed in some way. If the purpose of a fruit body is to reproduce by making and dropping spores, and insect infestation does not affect that (or at least not according to published studies I'm aware of), then is the relationship truly parasitic? I'm open to alternative wording though. Sasata (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Altered the wording and removed "pest". Sasata (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "and is commonly prepared and eaten in soups and stews. The slime coating, however, may cause indigestion if not removed before eating." From the lead- neither claim seems to be supported in the main article.

• I've stated and reffed the latter bit explicitly in the article, but the "soups and stews" was already there (Carluccio 2003). Sasata (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to be a stickler, but the lead says that it is commonly made into soups and stews, while the body says that a particular chef recommends using them to make soups and stews. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the older guidebooks elaborate more extensively on how various species are best eaten. I will double check... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - how they are cooked is noncontroversial, and apart from some variance of opinion on drying, most of the other is written here and there, so have left out author names as these opinions are not in any way egregious or original Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, unless something comes up I've missed. I can't see a source review turning up anything terribly problematic. Note to delegates: I am a WikiCup participant and have worked with Cas and Sasata several times before, including conominations at FAC. I was the GA reviewer of this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support form Jim. Not much left for me to pick at, although nucleotide DNA could do with a link or two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx. I can link nucleotide easily enough, but should be a better link somewhere... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The Smith AH, Thiers HD A Contribution Toward a Monograph source (currently cite #15) ... what makes this privately published source a reliable source?

• Smith and Thiers were highly regarded experts on mushroom taxonomy and easily qualify as established experts per WP:SPS. Sasata (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for the Loizides M, Kyriakou T, Tziakouris A Edible and Toxic (currently cite 42)?

• The lead author of that book has published several papers on Mediterranean mushrooms, and so I think also qualifies as an established expert on the subject (also, the cited fact isn't particularly contentious). Sasata (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.mushroomexpert.com/index.html a reliable source?

• Same as above, Kuo has published several books and research papers on mushrooms, and I think citing his self-published website for this non-contentious fact is acceptable. Sasata (talk)

• I spot checked the "Mushroom picking" Oberon Australia site, the site, and the Turkish Journal of Botany references and they all supported the information cited to them.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Ealdgyth! Sasata (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me. Source and spot checks done. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.