Talk:Lactarius subflammeus: Difference between revisions

	Lactarius subflammeus 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 July 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
	The text of the entry was: Did you know … that “milkcaps” can be orange (pictured), bright yellow, golden, woolly, downy, northern, sticky, smoky, velvety, deceptive, or vulgar?

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No work on the phylogenetic relations of this species?

• The lead has a few details that are not in the body (that it is slimy when fresh and that it is especially common in California and the Pacific Northwest). Sasata (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I’ll pass the article now. Ucucha 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are uncited paragraphs in the article in “Decription” and “Similar species”
• There is no information about the conservation status of the species.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There are uncited paragraphs in the article in “Decription” and “Similar species”. There is no information about the conservation status of the species. I think the lead could be expanded out a little more, especially if new sections are added. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these suggestions. Anything else? Esculenta (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]