Talk:Lactarius blennius

Latin

Weird thing is blennus is stupid fellow in my latin dictionary....need to hunt around....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't mix blennus and blennIus -- these are diffrerent words. --Khathi (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 19:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Good work in general, just a few problems:

• What are blennins (lead)?
  • Expanded on that, both in the lead and in the "uses" section. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• You use "subspecies" a little too often; botanical nomenclature distinguishes forms (abbreviated f.) and varieties (var.) from subspecies (ssp. or subsp.). I think I corrected all occurrences, but this may be something to keep in mind in other articles.
  • Thanks very much- I actually googled around a bit in an effort to understand the issue a little better, but I didn't find much. I don't often write taxonomy sections, I normally leave that to Sasata or Casliber. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Some unexplained jargon in the description: incurved, decurrent, adnate, amyloid (and is the link for that leading to the correct target?).
  • I've tried to deal with it- we cover what decurrent/adnate mean at lamella (mycology), now linked. No idea why amyloid was there (which is nothing to do with shape) as, looking again, the source doesn't mention it. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should have readers read another article just to know what the terms used here mean; compare this one of Sasata's (though perhaps I've got a little too much used to reviewing Sasata's mushrooms—others may have different preferences :). Ucucha 21:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Myself and Sasata have worked on articles together enough times that his style has rubbed off on me, and I suspect he will have picked up things from me. The way I've always seen it is that you should either link or explain- both can sometimes get a little excessive. The links are there to explain the terms if you don't know them, or, if there is no link, technical terms should be expanded upon. (You can of course get into a discussion of how much detail is required, what needs to be expanded upon, we're not the Simple English Wikipedia, yadda yadda. An interesting point on that note is that plenty of mycological terms are pretty obvious to me, while the taxonomic ones aren't- probably the other way around for you.) Anyway, I've rephrased so that the gill attachment is clear (which is far more easy to understand with a picture than it is with an explanation- see the mycomorphbox.) I'm happy to expand on any other terms if you think it would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks; I think it's fine now, and will pass as GA. Ucucha 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks very much for the quick review! J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Can you give any more detail on the distribution than "Europe"?
  • Thrown a few countries in there, but short of a source specifically talking about its distribution, that kind of thing is the best I can do. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks; I know from experience that fungal distributions usually end up as lists of countries. Ucucha 21:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 19:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sasata taught me never to abbreviate a word at the beginning of a paragraph. Ucucha 20:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll undo that. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some problems for a good article

This article needs a subsection about similar species and more information about the microscopic features.. The infobox not tell the synonyms. Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I added synonyms. Please, check. Dr. Lenaldo Vigo (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)