Talk:Suillellus luridus

New Picture

Ive added a new picture showing some details on this fungus. I am very confident that I have identified this fungi correctly, however I would appreciate someone else confirming this. Fitz05 (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not too familiar as I am in AUstralia but will check it out when I get a chance in a trusty guidebook. I think it is though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Characteristic/diagnostic/pathognomonic

I'd forgotten about this - good work for adding it - I was trying to think of a word like "diagnostic" as books talk about this feature being unique to B. luridus Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a good close-up image of this feature at Mushroom Observer that I hope to add when this gets fleshed out a bit more before FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 06:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

This looks really excellent on first pass. I see no issues and am proceeding to the checklist.

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 good; spotchecks show no evidence of 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 as GA

That's a big pass! But please note that I made some minor copyedits as I went. Please double-check that I haven't accidentally introduced any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

All copyedits look good - I can see the idea behind the splitting of the sentence with the second clause commencing, "Some guidebooks...." - I might go with a semicolon there....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting

Hmmm, mycobank notes that tehre is Tubiporus luridus from 1881....time to go find M.E.Nuhn....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Suillellus luridus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050505044124/http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/botany/issues/bot-04-28-1-2/bot-28-1-2-23-0207-2.pdf to http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/botany/issues/bot-04-28-1-2/bot-28-1-2-23-0207-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302235323/http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.pdf to http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suillellus luridus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925144244/http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/boletales_stuff/Global_Boletales_2004_28S.gif to http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/boletales_stuff/Global_Boletales_2004_28S.gif

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)