Talk:Lactifluus piperatus/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Lactarius piperatus/GA1)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Sasata in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Disclaimer: this is my 1st GA review, and I'm not yet well-versed with the nitty-gritty details of WP:MOS (or even the review process!), but hopefully my suggestions will be useful.

The coverage of the article is good, and it covers all the basics I'd expect for a species-level article on a semi-edible mushroom that does not have a particularly large body of published peer-reviewed literature. The Other uses section could be beefed up a tad – see comments below. Both images have free licenses. Article is well-referenced, and the couple of refs I looked up online checked out. I'd be happy to pass the article pending revisions addressing the points outlined below. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this context, we would like to draw the attention to the position of the type species of both Russula and Lactarius. Indeed, whereas the position of R. emetica – the nomenclatural type of Russula - is well within the clade that includes nearly all species of Russula, the type of Lactarius, L. piperatus, occupies a very isolated systematic position as it is classified in a separate subgenus. In our analysis, the type of Lactarius sits in the clade composed of predominantly tropical taxa. Without changing the type species of Lactarius, a name change for nearly all northern temperate taxa of Lactarius would be necessary in case clades ‘Lactarius 1’ and ‘Lactarius 3’ become separate genera.

  • citations should appear before commas, like this[1], not like this,[2] per MOS (although I can't seem to find the specific reference).
    • Citations after commas are far more common, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. See this guideline, or browse through some featured articles. The guidelines do allow for individual articles to be formatted with the "note before punctuation" style, but only if the article writers prefer it and there is not consensus for a change. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • if Minnesota is wikilinked (Distribution and habitat), maybe the other locales mentioned should be as well.
  • "It is sometimes found growing together with Russula cyanoxantha." It's not made clear why this is important - L. piperatus is probably found sometimes with a lot of other mushrooms as well. Is Russula cohabitation an identification characteristic?
  • "Though sometimes being described as inedible or even poisonous, L. piperatus is considered edible. Despite this, it is not recommended." - this construction sounds slightly awkward to me, please rephrase.
  • "L. piperatus var. glaucescens has been reported to be poisonous." - perhaps you could add a sentence or two in the description about this variant and what distinguishes it from the wild type.
  • "It forms part of an unusual and highly regarded dish in North America; L. piperatus one species of several colonised by the lobster mushroom Hypomyces lactifluorum." - grammatically awkward. Also, the citation is to Arora, which should be combined with the prior instance (citation #9).
  • "Due to the presence of auxins in L. piperatus metabolites, it can be used to aid the growth of seedlings of various species of plants, including hazel, beech and oak." - that's interesting, but unclear as to how - are mushrooms ground up and put in the dirt? Compounds extracted from mycelial culture? Mycelial inoculation into soil to stimulate mycorrhizal associations? Please elaborate slightly.
  • "In the 19th century, it was also used for medicinal purposes, though it had no effect." ?? more please
  • "In more recent times, it has been found to be useful against viral warts." Can I rub it on my skin? Or might it be more accurate to say something like "Bioactive compounds from L. piperatus have been shown to inhibit the growth of human papilloma virus in vitro. I think a little more info would be appreciated by most readers.

Based on the improvements made, I will promote the article to GA status. Congratulations! Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ here
  2. ^ not here