Talk:Lactarius sanguifluus/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Sasata in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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)
- Does the species not have an English common name worthy of mention?
- "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?
- "and become funnel-shaped in age" With age?
- "have been isolated and identified from the mushrooms." From its mushroom?
- Could be nice with a short presentation of the persons mentioned, such as "Swedish mycologist Elias Magnus Fries", etc.
- 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.
- "Because Paulet's 1811 drawing of the species was not typical" His type illustration?
- Of all the countries it appears in, why mention the Indian and Spanish names? Seems arbitrary.
- Any explanations for why it was reclassified (and how it was classified in the first place)? What were the rationales?
- 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.
- "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.
- Not a first language English speaker, so this might be obvious, but what does "grow on the grow" mean?
- "Spaniards from Barcelona" persons/men from Barcelona? We already know it was in Spain, so Spaniards seems redundant.
- 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.
- It seems to have a very sporadic distribution, with only some countries mentioned here, but these span a huge area. Is anything omitted?
- "with a guaiane skeletons" A skeletons?