Talk:Lactifluus volemus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll start ASAP :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice article! Here's the first round of issues:

• In Tax and phylogeny, the mycomorphbox above and the cladogram are crowding the paragraph tooo much, but I'm sure the formatting around the two is tricky.
  • Yes, this one is tricky. I expanded the Taxonomy section a bit by describing some more of the historical synonyms, and felt the phylogeny was lengthy enough to be moved into a separate section. That helped a bit, but now the "Description subheader" has been pushed to the right... I can probably fix it by expanding Phylogeny a bit more. Turns out I found out there's a new phylogenetics study in the works that will probably be published later this year, demonstrating that North American taxon can also be divided into several different species/subspecies. When that comes out, I will add it (and probably submit for FAC), and I think it will fix the current problem.

Good fix... much better! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also, a couple more things in Tax/phylo: in sentence "Lactarius volemus was originally named by Swedish mycologist Elias Magnus Fries as Agaricus volemus in 1821, but he later changed the genus to Lactarius in his 1838 Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici.", flesh out slightly why it went from Agaricus to Lactarius.
  • Added a bit of background for this. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Then; the paragraph "In 2005, Japanese researchers reported using molecular techniques and differences in fatty acid composition to clarify the phylogenetic relationships between these two species and others in section Dulces. The colour variants group into different subclades, suggesting that the colour variants might better be considered as "different species, subspecies, or varieties.".." As per DOI 10.1007/s10267-006-0346-0, we aren't getting that the subcladistic distinction between L. volemus and L. corrugis was made using nucleotide sequence analysis/fatty acid composition; then the taxonomic differences between the color variants was considered using those subcladistic delineating criteria with the addition of differences between morphologic characteristics and taste of the fruiting bodies. I may have worded that unclearly; but the section isn't showing us that taxonomy and phylogeny are different schemes, and what specific role they played in finding the speciation/taxonomic distinction of L. volemus :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not totally sure I understand what you mean ... does the fact that I separated the taxonomy and phylogeny sections help at all? :) Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mind reader! Seriously, I overstated horridly (you've seen me do that before). You "got" me, thankfully... and quite proficiently :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Next up. Another threebie:

• Maybe a fattening-up of the caption for File:Milchbraetling-WJP.jpeg; is that much latex exuding out like drops, or beading-up on the gill surface?

• Caption fattened. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Edibility and other uses; hmmm... "It is considered a good mushroom for beginners to eat,...". Beginner eaters? :)

• Didn't notice that unintended meaning... now "novice mushroom hunters". Sasata (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mmm! Mmm! Tumor cell inhibitor! ;) Let's elaborate a bit/relocate sentence "Extracts of the fruit bodies have been reported to inhibit the growth of tumor cell lines in laboratory tests." to Bioactive compounds. We can then have a plain Edibility section, too. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good idea, done. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good again! Looks like we've synergized another fungus to GA Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again... the copyedits of my habitual sloppiness are much appreciated! Sasata (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Lactarius volemus passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass