Talk:Lentinus brumalis

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that cultures of the fungus Lentinus brumalis have been brought onto three different satellites? Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780080244365500287

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11962503/

• • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Зэгс ус (talk). Self-nominated at 00:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lentinus brumalis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment only I've just run a couple of scripts to fix MOS issues plus removed a stub tag (from a GA!). I'm thus not sure how thorough the GA review was. I encourage reviewers to look more closely than they otherwise would when reviewing GAs for DYK. Schwede66 21:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The first source given is a deprecated source. However the second source given is reliable, as it is an official website. It could be a primary source, but given that the hook is about a certain species of fungi, I'd let it pass. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brachy0008: where is ScienceDirect deprecated? I could only find the discussion regarding their machine-generated "Topics" summaries.[1] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked... only the topic summaries are deprecated. Other stuff about ScienceDirect doesn't show up anywhere else in WP:RSP. There's a second citation though Brachy08 _(Talk) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review!

I have fixed the issues you brought up. There were no page numbers in Sridhar, but I provided the chapter.

The German citations you commented on about finding a page number for, were holdovers from the German version of this article that I originally translated, which did not provide the page numbers. I could not find them online, therefore I deleted the citations, and replaced them with sources that do back up the claims.

For your question about MushroomExpert.com; Other than the fact that the website is called Mushroom Expert ;) it is reliable according to WP:RSSELF, as the creator (and writer of the page cited) has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals (Mycologia, Mycotaxon, MycoKeys) in the field of mycology. The page cited includes citations at the end as well.

Let me know if there is any other improvements I can make!

Зэгс ус (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

An interesting article on a fungus.

• We use "Sentence case" for all headings, i.e. only one upper-case letter other than for proper names, e.g. "Macroscopic characteristics".

• For macroscopic measurements, please use the "convert" template, i.e. not "1.5-10 cm" but "{{cvt|1.5|to|10|cm|in|0}}" which yields "1.5 to 10 cm (1 to 4 in)".

• "inamyloid", "basidia", "cystidia", "dimitic" (maybe others) are all technical enough and rare enough for general readers to need some sort of gloss, e.g. along the lines of "do not contain starch" as appropriate for each one. It may be best to have the glosses as comma-separated phrases (in apposition) rather than using a lot of parentheses.

• No space between punctuation and refs, or before punctuation, please (multiple instances).

• "saprobic" is a minor synonym for "saprotrophic" or the more familiar "saprophytic", please change this.

• "hemlock", "fir", "willow", "poplar" - please wikilink. In UK hemlock means a poisonous forb in the Apiaceae.

• "Celtis australis" suddenly pops up when the other trees have common names. Its common names include "European nettle tree", suggest we use that.

• "It is found across North America, ..... It also grows in Northern Europe". This sounds Am-centric, and ignores Russia (never a good move). The lead has "is distributed throughout the Northern hemisphere in temperate and boreal zones." which seems much better, though we may need a source for "temperate and boreal" unless [2] Jahn states this. We should wikilink "temperate" and "boreal" in both lead and body.

• "dibutyl phthalate, or DBP. A study in 2007 reported that DBP..." - We don't really need to introduce the TLA (Three-Letter Acronym) here. Why not just write " dibutyl phthalate. A 2007 study reported that it ..."

• Not sure why we're mentioning dyestuffs when the species is no good for that use; best just drop the mention; but the wording "unsuitable for" is curious, I'd just say it was no use as a dyestuff if I really wanted to mention this for some reason.

Images

• The two images (very nice, btw) are plausibly licensed as own work on Commons.

Sources

• for all German (and other foreign) sources, please use |trans-title= to provide an English translation of the title.

• [17] is a duplicate of [4] Phillips, please merge.

• What makes [5] mushroomexpert.com a reliable source?

• [7] Gerhardt is a lengthy book. Page number please.

• [8] Krieglsteiner ditto.

• [9] Breitenbach ditto.

• [12] Sridhar ditto.

• [9] has the authors correct at the end of the citation but wrongly duplicates Breitenbach, J. as each of the two authors at the top! Please fix and remove the duplication. ("hrsg. von" means "prepared by" in German)

• [10] BC Atlas has an author's name there, Ian Gibson, so might as well add that; and the editor is Michael Beug.

• [13] Tudor - what's a "thesis thesis", a discourse on dissertations maybe? Publisher is missing, too, and page number would help.

• Not sure why [23] Bessette has the date twice.

Summary

• The article is nearly GA-worthy but needs the mentioned issues fixed first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Forgive my intrusion at this review, but as a fungus fan I cannot resist adding a comment. I think a few words need to be said about the taxonomy of this species. It has an extensive taxonomic history, evidenced by the synonymy listed here, and this should at least be mentioned. A taxonomy section doesn't need to be extensive, but it should at the very least mention who described it and when (and with what name), and who transferred it to its current genus (and when), and why they made this transfer. An abbreviated synonymy listing in the taxobox is fine, but it should certainly list the basionym and any other synonyms used commonly in the literature. Zmitrovich's 2010 genus transfer paper is available here. The source for Persoon's original description is "Persoon, CH. 1794. Neuer Versuch einer systematischen Eintheilung der Schwämme. Neues Magazin für die Botanik in ihrem ganzen Umfange. 1:63-80", which is available here. Have fun with the review, Esculenta (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look into this. Зэгс ус (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we'll have to hold the GAN for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a taxonomy section with the details about the basionym and when this species was transferred to its current genus. However, taxonomy is not my field of expertise, so my contribution is limited in this regard. If you have the time, could you assist me in further developing this aspect of the article? Зэгс ус (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.