Talk:Lactarius deterrimus

Lactarius deterrimus 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 12, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 30, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that eating Lactarius deterrimus (pictured) causes red urine?

a "churlish" edge[edit]

"Churlish" is this special sense is mycojargon and needs a parenthetical explanation for the general reader. I'd fix it myself, but OED doesn't tell me what makes an edge "churlish".--Wetman (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, it is one of two words describing the German work "filzig" (it is a German translation). I can replace it with "felted " if you want, or suggest another word. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not quite sure what that means, either... --GoP _T ^C _N 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

This is a highly specialized article. In reading through it I've made only on edit.[1]. However, it's written in such a way to be accessible to the nonspecialist. Good job in covering its history, the description of the fungus and it's variants, its use as food etc. It's always interesting when a forgotten scientist comes to the fore and a species name reverted to the original!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! That was very fast O_O =). I also owe special thanks to the various copyeditors, especially Sasata, and others during its appearance on the main page. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I saw Casliber too. I do tend to trust editors whose articles I've seen before and who in my book are experts on the subject! Great pictures, citations all in order, etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from German Wikipedia[edit]

As this is obviously a translation of the German article(de:Fichtenreizker) , is there something about the copyrights? In the German WP they have something like an version import. Josef Papi (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since content of Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA and the languages of the articles are not the same, I don't see any issues. Importation is not possible if the article is already available in the respective wiki. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why does this page exist? For example the article Lego-Brücke is imported in this way to conserve the German authors. And at least in the German WP there exists something like an "after-import" (Nachimport) for merging the differetn histories. At least it should be marked as here that it is a translation. Best regards Josef Papi (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done the latter. I will ask for a Nachimport :). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef Papi (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the importation page but the request for denied. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix text[edit]

Problem in: "Lactarius deterrimus differs basically from the first because its flesh becomes reddish within 10 minutes and in about 30 minutes dark maroon, caused by the discolouration of the milk. The milk of L. deterrimus stays orange or becomes reddish within 30 minutes." Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lactarius deterrimus. 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:

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) 07:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]