Talk:Lactarius sanguifluus

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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• "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)

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

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• "with a guaiane skeletons" A skeletons?

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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