![]() | Tylopilus felleus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2015. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 23, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the bacterium
Paenibacillus tylopili is found in the
mycorrhizosphere of
Tylopilus felleus (pictured)? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Although it is not poisonous, it is not considered edible, due to its overwhelming bitterness. It may be so in the rest of the world but Tylopilus felleus is eaten in Viet Nam and considered a delicacy by people who can stand its bitterness. Some people eagerly wait for the rains in May and August to harvest the mushroom or to buy it from the market. There are specialty dishes combining T. felleus and meat or seafood. I suggest the readers to open the article in Vietnamese and use Google Translate to read up. --Mirrordor 17:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor ( talk • contribs)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything on first pass that seems to require further action. It's well written, well sourced, and appears comprehensive. As a bonus, the quotation about the mushroom "depressing" mushroom hunters is quite funny. I did make a few tweaks for grammar and linking; please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors.
I also italicized Index Fungorum, which appears to be the common approach on articles found through Google Scholar ( [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.). The template at the bottom remains unitalicized, but I left a note at the template page asking about this issue. (The Index Fungorum article itself was half-and-half between the two approaches.) I don't consider this to be important for Good Article status, however; this is simply me being OCD. Will start the checklist after I've grabbed some coffee. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is excellent. Spotchecks against English-language sources show no copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |
The Healing-mushrooms.net link provides links to peer-reviewed medical studies done with T. felleus. What do you think--are any of these worth including here? -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, judging by this page's summary, the antiinflammatory testing yielded indifferent results, and doesn't appear to have been followed up upon, so I don't feel unhappy if we don't get the fulltext of that one. The others predate the 1994 study included by the same author... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Based on the above, I've added some bits and pieces. I can add the Simon and Schuster ref though that bit is somewhat densely cited now..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am feeling pretty good about giving this a run at FAC now....I can't imagine there is much left out..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Can the distribution be checked, please? The lead section says it grows in Northern Europe, but in fact it is much more spread. It is very common in the Czech Republic, which is definitely not in Northern Europe. Jan Kameníček ( talk) 07:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that the last paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section has no application to the taxonomy of the fungi species. I think it should either be incorporated into the lead or made into an "Etymology" section, since the first sentence is about etymology of the scientific name and the next sentence talks about the common names the species has. Gug01 ( talk) 15:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tylopilus felleus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Tylopilus felleus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2015. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 23, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the bacterium
Paenibacillus tylopili is found in the
mycorrhizosphere of
Tylopilus felleus (pictured)? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Although it is not poisonous, it is not considered edible, due to its overwhelming bitterness. It may be so in the rest of the world but Tylopilus felleus is eaten in Viet Nam and considered a delicacy by people who can stand its bitterness. Some people eagerly wait for the rains in May and August to harvest the mushroom or to buy it from the market. There are specialty dishes combining T. felleus and meat or seafood. I suggest the readers to open the article in Vietnamese and use Google Translate to read up. --Mirrordor 17:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor ( talk • contribs)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything on first pass that seems to require further action. It's well written, well sourced, and appears comprehensive. As a bonus, the quotation about the mushroom "depressing" mushroom hunters is quite funny. I did make a few tweaks for grammar and linking; please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors.
I also italicized Index Fungorum, which appears to be the common approach on articles found through Google Scholar ( [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.). The template at the bottom remains unitalicized, but I left a note at the template page asking about this issue. (The Index Fungorum article itself was half-and-half between the two approaches.) I don't consider this to be important for Good Article status, however; this is simply me being OCD. Will start the checklist after I've grabbed some coffee. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is excellent. Spotchecks against English-language sources show no copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |
The Healing-mushrooms.net link provides links to peer-reviewed medical studies done with T. felleus. What do you think--are any of these worth including here? -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, judging by this page's summary, the antiinflammatory testing yielded indifferent results, and doesn't appear to have been followed up upon, so I don't feel unhappy if we don't get the fulltext of that one. The others predate the 1994 study included by the same author... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Based on the above, I've added some bits and pieces. I can add the Simon and Schuster ref though that bit is somewhat densely cited now..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am feeling pretty good about giving this a run at FAC now....I can't imagine there is much left out..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Can the distribution be checked, please? The lead section says it grows in Northern Europe, but in fact it is much more spread. It is very common in the Czech Republic, which is definitely not in Northern Europe. Jan Kameníček ( talk) 07:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that the last paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section has no application to the taxonomy of the fungi species. I think it should either be incorporated into the lead or made into an "Etymology" section, since the first sentence is about etymology of the scientific name and the next sentence talks about the common names the species has. Gug01 ( talk) 15:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tylopilus felleus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)