A fact from Russula brevipes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,225 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Thanks for pointing that out; I had been using the synonymy from Index Fungorum (who are of the opinion that they are distinct) and had not yet checked MycoBank. I don't think anyone will be able to confirm that the two are conspecific until DNA analysis is performed, and to the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been done yet. If they do turn out to be the same, R. brevipes will have priority as it was published first. However, I will add MycoBank's opinion to this article. Thanks for the note! Sasata (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first GA review, so it will rely on Good Faith of the article creator to some degree. It will take me some time to familiarize myself with the topic as well, since I am not a mycologist.—Gaffταλκ23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They are more platable" might work better than "Their quality is improved" (style points, not essential) in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Not knowing anything about lobster mushrooms, it was a little confusing. Perhaps some copyedits might help clarify. I'm also not sure there needs to be two paragraphs, since the second is only two sentences and the ideas are not that far removed.
This is more geared to peer review process, but adding alt text (Wikipedia:Alternative text for images) with text description of the File:Russula brevipes.JPG in the taxobox, and other images, is important to improve accessibility for visually impaired readers. Current alt text simply read "Russula brevipes.JPG". See [1] for others.
Similar species and how to differentiate might be expanded? One of your refs points out some of the features (gill spacing) that distinguish R. breviceps and R. delica. It sounds like the story is really complicated. You have listed similararities with other species (the subalpine waxy cap, and others), but not not so for breviceps and delica, even though a lot of the taxonomy confusion focuses there. "A description not accurately matching the North American counterparts" could be more detailed?
Good points both; I've added a bit about R. delica to the similar species section, and described Fries's early species concept in "Taxonomy". Sasata (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Shaffer defined the varieties acrior and megaspora in 1964 from Californian specimens" -- consider pointing out that these are varieties of breviceps, since the preceding paragraph is about some complicated taxonomy.
I'm sorry, somehow I missed your later additions (drawback of a watchlist with 10,000+ items) ... I will work on this tonight after kiddies are asleep. Sasata (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Parasitised" and "parasitized." Is one British and the other US? What is typical in Canada? Either spelling is correct, but article should be consistent.
Also, not sure both need to be linked at beginning of article and at end. Same with the Hypomyces lactifluorum. However, it is probably fine, since one is in the lead and the other at the end.
I also think it's generally ok to link in the lead and later in the article (especially if the links are separated by a page or more of text). Sasata (talk)
"transforming it into an edible" -- transforming them (fruit bodies) ? or just start paragraph with "The fruit body," then keep the it, since that is how the rest of the paragraph goes.?
"short-stemmed russula, short-stalked white Russula" Should it be capitalized or no, since it is common name? Please check and make consistent throughout.
From automated checker: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1000 meters, use 1000 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1000 meters. I fixed it.
* I'm trying really hard to give you a challenging GA review that we both feel comfortable with. The article looks good to me and I have compared it with some of your other Russula contributions. This will obviously pass GA criteria. I will keep picking away, but if you find that I am taking to long, feel free to ask me to stop and I will either pass or ask for a second opinion. Since this is my first review, I want to make sure you are not short changed. —Gaffταλκ17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
