Talk:Lactarius sanguifluus

Lactarius sanguifluus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 30, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Lactarius sanguifluus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 September 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the edible mushroom Lactarius sanguifluus can bioaccumulate heavy metals from polluted soil, such as near roadsides subject to heavy traffic?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/September.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lactarius sanguifluus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this will be the first fungus article I ever review. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this experience will encourage you to review more! Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know, since I hesitated in the past, due to lack of experience with them. Hope I will learn more by reviewing. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the species not have an English common name worthy of mention?

It sure does, thanks for catching my oversight :O Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the norm is for fungus article, but shouldn't that name also have a mention in the lead? FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lactarius sanguifluus is an edible species of fungus" Surely only the mushrooms are edible? So perhaps edible should be written in the sentence after, when the mushrooms are mentioned?

Have shuffled this. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and become funnel-shaped in age" With age?

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"have been isolated and identified from the mushrooms." From its mushroom?

I think this one's ok – there's no ambiguity as to what mushrooms we're reading about in my opinion. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be nice with a short presentation of the persons mentioned, such as "Swedish mycologist Elias Magnus Fries", etc.

I tend not to do that with every name that appears, as it tends to get repetitive when there's been a lot of nomenclatural changes and they're all mycologists. Have added this information for the fellow who first described it. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of Hypophyllum? A junior synonym of another genus? In that case, a link would be in order, but it seems we have no article for it.

Junior synonym for Agaricus; now linked. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Because Paulet's 1811 drawing of the species was not typical" His type illustration?

Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what was not typical, the specimen depicted? FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added morphology, but the source doesn't go into any more detail. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the countries it appears in, why mention the Indian and Spanish names? Seems arbitrary.

I've removed the Indian name but kept the Spanish names as they are often used in culinary circles. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any explanations for why it was reclassified (and how it was classified in the first place)? What were the rationales?

My sources are coming up empty for any useful explanation of why the species was transferred between three genera. I added a bit about why it is classified in the section Dapetes. Sasata (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this image[1] gives a better impression of how it looks than the infobox image, especially since there is already an image of the underside in the article.

I agree and have swapped it. It shows the "bleeding" reaction on the stipe nicely. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The gills have an adnate to slightly decurrent attachment to the stem. Somewhat crowded, they are pale vinaceous with a pale pinkish-buff edge." The somewhat crowded gills? It seems odd that "somewhat crowded" should be mentioned in the next sentence, I was confused as to what it was even referring to when I first read it.

Have shuffled these bits around. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a first language English speaker, so this might be obvious, but what does "grow on the grow" mean?

Oops – fixed. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Spaniards from Barcelona" persons/men from Barcelona? We already know it was in Spain, so Spaniards seems redundant.

Trimmed. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The small section under similar species seems to make more sense under taxonomy? It does not appear to be about simply similar species, as much as classification.

That sentence have been moved up as suggested, and a more proper similar species section put in its place. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have a very sporadic distribution, with only some countries mentioned here, but these span a huge area. Is anything omitted?

I've added more more details. Will keep looking ... Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think this section is reasonably thorough now. Sasata (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"with a guaiane skeletons" A skeletons?

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now, with the expansion and new images. I was going to ask about a longer lead, but you've already taken care of that. So I will pass it now. Nice read! FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, FunkMonk, I appreciate it. Sasata (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]