Template talk:Did you know/Entoloma bloxamii

Entoloma bloxamii

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Crisco 1492 (talk)

... that the British Mycological Society have proposed changing the common name for Entoloma bloxamii from Bloxam's entoloma to the big blue pinkgill?

Reviewed: If you reviewed another article before listing this DYK nomination, put it here
Comment: yeah I know the image is blurry but it is an amazing colour and looks ok as a thumb. Feel free to substitute one of the others here.

Created by Casliber (talk), Pigsonthewing (talk). Self nom at 12:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed Roman Amphitheatre Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review (the newfangled structure seems not to be present here):

Date, size, hook fact ok. No copyvio found after a few Google spot checks, no structural, editorial or neutrality/stability problems. Would recommend the non-blurred File:2010-12-04 Entoloma bloxamii 2 60253.jpg from the article instead, and the image lacks a caption.

Frankly not a very gripping hook, but I suppose most mushrooms are rather boring and this one seems to be no exception. Good sourcing, except for:

the first reference link, [1], is broken or currently dead and should be checked again. Sandstein 16:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(alt 1) "... that the fungus Bloxam's entoloma was named after an English clergyman?". The first ref was taken on good faith from the source of the donated text, ARKive; see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the ALT1...can go with that....will look at link.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image suitability, if applicable: I think it's unsuitable at 100px. What is it? I like ALT1. Article looks good. Nice. Tony (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe crop this image to square size? But "what is it?" could be a good thing for this thumbnail, IMO. It certainly drew my eye and made me curious. Sharktopus ^talk 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know this photo isn't particularly good technically but blue is such an unusual colour in a mushroom...and its so blue! I think it is more intriguing than a technically better but less interestingly coloured specimen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not so much the technical quality of the pic, but the fact that it's hard to decipher what it is in such a small thumbnail, because of its unexpected colour and the fact that it's lying side-on. I do wish it could be 120px. This main-page insistence on 100px is becoming a real problem, and is so unnecessary. Up to you ... Tony (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It could be substantially cropped though, as the blue mushroom only occupies part of the RHS of the pic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a square version. Not sure why the color looks a little less blue, all I did was crop it. Maybe somebody with better skills could do better than I did. Sharktopus ^talk 00:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the word on the link? I tried and it won't work either. Image doesn't seem particularly interesting at 100px. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oops, forgot about this one. I can find another.~~ rejigged refs and removed deadlink. There are some alternative images. I just liked this one as it is blue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. It is a nice image, but 100px doesn't do it justice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]