Talk:Laetiporus sulphureus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Fungi Laetiporus sulphureus is supported by WikiProject Fungi, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Fungi. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within mycology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


[edit] Image removal

I've removed the image Image:LSulphureus16Jul03GdsdnCoFL.jpg - while there's nothing really terrible about it, it looks more like a photo of the child than of the fungus, and doesn't give a very encyclopaedic impression. If you want something for scale comparison, a hand or a coin or something would be a bit more conventional. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are quite right, Pseudomonas, that a hand or coin would be a more standard technique for showing size. I only had the photo of the boy, however. If, by "encylopaedic impression", you mean, for example, the appearance of a field guide, then you are also correct on that point. I think it is at least arguable, though, as to whether a good article, even on a technical subject, should avoid anything without a clear and specific need. Many, many Wikipedia articles include illustrations which offer little or no additional information, beyond entertainment or interest, and this is not, I believe, a bad thing. Basically, I think the article is better with the boy plus mushroom (but certainly not worth an edit war at any level). Tim Ross (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect to Laetiporus

Redirected this page to Laetiporus, as Laetiporus sulphureus is discussed there. Relevant information will be merged.

This also solves the image issue, as the article has a much better size comparison image:

Rror (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)