Talk:Lactarius subflammeus

The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. ^Date: 15:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

	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
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 20, 2010. 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 rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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?

• Not that I'm aware of. There hasn't been much published about this mushroom. Sasata (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That at least I had understood. :-) Ucucha 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• I think I've fixed this. Thanks for another review! 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]

Article review

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]

GA Reassessment

Lactarius subflammeus

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]

• Keep. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]