Talk:Russula densifolia

Russula densifolia 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: October 21, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Russula densifolia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although the reddening russula is mildly to moderately toxic, it is sold as an edible species in some areas of Asia?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russula densifolia.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong, just a couple of nitpicks:

The second picture lacks a caption.

Oops, added. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that you don't mention the forms that are recognised in the taxonomy section; only those that aren't.

As far as I can tell, all subtaxa are not considered significant (by Fungorum) and have been lumped into the main type.

But you list/describe subtaxa in the third paragraph of the description; it seems odd that these subtaxa aren't mentioned in the taxonomy section. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now ... have now moved this to the taxonomy section so the reader doesn't get the impression that these are still considered valid taxa. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Chiang Mai Province?

Yes, corrected. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are "sphaerocysts"?

Glossed a definition. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"epicutus", which I think you've misspelt, is another undefined word

Now spelled correctly, and meaning should be clear from surrounding text. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "a cap cuticle that is rarely less than 150 micrometers thick" in the lead, but this isn't repeated in the article proper. Is this particularly thick?

Not really, but it helps distinguish this species from similar Russula species. I'll dig up the Shaffer paper and see if I can make this more clear. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took out the specifics from the lead, and added a bit about cuticle width in the micro characeristics section. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"R. densifolia is often confused with R. acrifolia, but its gills do not change color when bruised." But the latter's?

Added. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tobacco Mosaic Virus" Probably doesn't need to be capitalised

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably belongs in Category:Fungi of Asia, Category:Edible fungi and Category:Poisonous fungi.

Added. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check page numbers on the Shaffer source.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources generally look great- well done on digging up those obscure non-English journals! Pictures are excellent. No issues with stability, NPOV etc. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to promote. If you're aiming for FAC, I'd recommend expanding the lead, looking for any more research to talk about in the short "research" section and looking again at the subtaxa/synonyms (for example, some of the synonyms are not listed in the taxobox). You may also want to consider a mycomorphbox, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it! Anyway, great work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]