Talk:Suillus quiescens

Suillus quiescens 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
September 17, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 5, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the specific name of the newly described fungus Suillus quiescens refers to the ability of its spores to lay dormant in the soil until pine roots are encountered?

Fungi Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work; the only problem I see is that the information about taxonomy (first collected in 2002, named in 2010) is not in the body. Ucucha 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Also added some other details I just found. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; passing now. Ucucha 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]