![]() | Lentinus brumalis 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. Review: March 2, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Lentinus brumalis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii
talk
16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11962503/
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.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
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)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
An interesting article on a fungus.
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)
![]() | Lentinus brumalis 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. Review: March 2, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Lentinus brumalis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii
talk
16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11962503/
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.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
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)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
An interesting article on a fungus.
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)