Talk:Lactifluus piperatus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Disclaimer: this is my 1st GA review, and I'm not yet well-versed with the nitty-gritty details of WP:MOS (or even the review process!), but hopefully my suggestions will be useful.

The coverage of the article is good, and it covers all the basics I'd expect for a species-level article on a semi-edible mushroom that does not have a particularly large body of published peer-reviewed literature. The Other uses section could be beefed up a tad – see comments below. Both images have free licenses. Article is well-referenced, and the couple of refs I looked up online checked out. I'd be happy to pass the article pending revisions addressing the points outlined below. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * some terms I think should be wikilinked for the less mycologically adept: mycorrhizal (lead), specific epithet (or use "species name"), type species (Taxonomy), adnate (Description)
 * ✅ J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * please mention somewhere in passing the proper term latex for Lactarius "milk".
 * ✅ J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you could wikt link elongate to remove that redlink
 * ✅ Good idea. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "however in the complex relationship between Lactarius and Russula it is somewhat isolated from many other milk-cap species" Explain in what way it is isolated (i.e., phylogenetically).
 * Biology isn't my subject, at all. The relevant section of the source is-

In this context, we would like to draw the attention to the position of the type species of both Russula and Lactarius. Indeed, whereas the position of R. emetica – the nomenclatural type of Russula - is well within the clade that includes nearly all species of Russula, the type of Lactarius, L. piperatus, occupies a very isolated systematic position as it is classified in a separate subgenus. In our analysis, the type of Lactarius sits in the clade composed of predominantly tropical taxa. Without changing the type species of Lactarius, a name change for nearly all northern temperate taxa of Lactarius would be necessary in case clades ‘Lactarius 1’ and ‘Lactarius 3’ become separate genera.


 * I don't really know what to add. I'll contact Casliber- I believe it was him who added it, and he certainly knows his stuff. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea is that it is is in fact more closely related to many species of Russula than to most other milk-caps. Need to double check this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reads better now, thanks Cas. Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * citations should appear before commas, like this, not like this, per MOS (although I can't seem to find the specific reference).
 * Citations after commas are far more common, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. See this guideline, or browse through some featured articles. The guidelines do allow for individual articles to be formatted with the "note before punctuation" style, but only if the article writers prefer it and there is not consensus for a change. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always had tehm after commas, and it seems that most others do as well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Someday I need to read that MOS front to back! Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * if Minnesota is wikilinked (Distribution and habitat), maybe the other locales mentioned should be as well.
 * ✅ J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is sometimes found growing together with Russula cyanoxantha." It's not made clear why this is important - L. piperatus is probably found sometimes with a lot of other mushrooms as well. Is Russula cohabitation an identification characteristic?
 * Again, I believe Casliber added that source. I will mention it to him. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Often in these type of articles on plants and fungi I add info on what something is found near if it is noted in guidebooks. The fact that it is singled out suggests it is quite a prominent association, so I felt it was noteworthy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me. Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Though sometimes being described as inedible or even poisonous, L. piperatus is considered edible. Despite this, it is not recommended." - this construction sounds slightly awkward to me, please rephrase.
 * ✅ Better? J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "L. piperatus var. glaucescens has been reported to be poisonous." - perhaps you could add a sentence or two in the description about this variant and what distinguishes it from the wild type.
 * ✅ Also added a few notes from the new source. (It's reliable- written by a published mycologist.) J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "It forms part of an unusual and highly regarded dish in North America; L. piperatus one species of several colonised by the lobster mushroom Hypomyces lactifluorum." - grammatically awkward. Also, the citation is to Arora, which should be combined with the prior instance (citation #9).
 * ❌ I've tried to rephrase, but I am not going to combine the footnotes as they refer to different page numbers. It's pretty standard practice to have separate notes where citing to different pages. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will check Arora later today when I am home. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Due to the presence of auxins in L. piperatus metabolites, it can be used to aid the growth of seedlings of various species of plants, including hazel, beech and oak." - that's interesting, but unclear as to how - are mushrooms ground up and put in the dirt? Compounds extracted from mycelial culture? Mycelial inoculation into soil to stimulate mycorrhizal associations? Please elaborate slightly.
 * ✅ Is that enough? Again, I'm reading a text aimed specialists, I don't want to interpret it wrongly. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still unclear how it is "applied", but it's more descriptive than before. Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "In the 19th century, it was also used for medicinal purposes, though it had no effect." ?? more please
 * ✅ J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "In more recent times, it has been found to be useful against viral warts." Can I rub it on my skin? Or might it be more accurate to say something like "Bioactive compounds from L. piperatus have been shown to inhibit the growth of human papilloma virus in vitro. I think a little more info would be appreciated by most readers.
 * The source only has a single sentence discussing the mushroom- it can be read here. I think I have added all I can- again, I don't want to read something that it doesn't say. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely clearer now. Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * have a look here for some more ideas/references you might use.

Based on the improvements made, I will promote the article to GA status. Congratulations! Sasata (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)