# Talk:Leccinum holopus

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leccinum holopus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Some varieties of Leccinum holopus have been described that vary in cap color or staining reaction, but DNA evidence suggests that most are the same species" Varieties are always the same species. On that point, are you meaning to say that none of the described varieties/forms are no longer recognised?
I've changed species to taxon. Some of these varieties are still used (especially in European literature), so I don't want to say that they aren't recognized. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"On the cap underside is a porous surface comprising pores measuring 2 to 3 per millimeter" numbering rather than measuring, surely?
Surely! Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You link hyphae at the second mention, but not the first.
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"negative on the cap, and negative to slightly olive" A bit jargony
Reworded. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's mycorrhizal, I assume?
Now made this more explicit. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't cite Kuo's 100 Edible Mushrooms? Or are you indirectly citing it via The Book of Fungi?
Added forgotten citation. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Peter Roberts and Shelley Evans in The Book of Fungi say "it is edible, but is said to be tasteless and pappy, so is not recommended."" Is this MOS:LQ compliant?
I've reviewed MOS:LQ and cannot see a problem ... what did you have in mind? Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"among sphagnum moss" If you mean to refer to the genus, you'd need a capital; if you mean to refer to the common name, it wouldn't be in italics.
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Can I ask why you've chosen that image for the lead? I much prefer the bottom one.
I've switched them now ... look better? There's also this, which is a valued image, and might a good replacement for the now 2nd image. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a big deal for GAC, but I note that you have some publication locations but not others.
Missing locations now added. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Good stuff, as ever. Sources are great, images are fine copyright-wise. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Great- promoting now. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)