Talk:Russula densifolia
Russula densifolia 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. Review: October 21, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from Russula densifolia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Russula densifolia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Generally very strong, just a couple of nitpicks:
- The second picture lacks a caption.
- It's odd that you don't mention the forms that are recognised in the taxonomy section; only those that aren't.
- As far as I can tell, all subtaxa are not considered significant (by Fungorum) and have been lumped into the main type.
- I assume you mean Chiang Mai Province?
- What are "sphaerocysts"?
- "epicutus", which I think you've misspelt, is another undefined word
- You mention "a cap cuticle that is rarely less than 150 micrometers thick" in the lead, but this isn't repeated in the article proper. Is this particularly thick?
- "R. densifolia is often confused with R. acrifolia, but its gills do not change color when bruised." But the latter's?
- "Tobacco Mosaic Virus" Probably doesn't need to be capitalised
- Probably belongs in Category:Fungi of Asia, Category:Edible fungi and Category:Poisonous fungi.
- Check page numbers on the Shaffer source.
Sources generally look great- well done on digging up those obscure non-English journals! Pictures are excellent. No issues with stability, NPOV etc. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to promote. If you're aiming for FAC, I'd recommend expanding the lead, looking for any more research to talk about in the short "research" section and looking again at the subtaxa/synonyms (for example, some of the synonyms are not listed in the taxobox). You may also want to consider a mycomorphbox, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it! Anyway, great work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)