Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Multiclavula mucida/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- I checked a random line (citations removed):
"This species is commonly found on decomposing wood, often in the presence of algae. It thrives on a wide variety of substrates, including bamboo, beech, cedar, poplar, and oak."
Poplar and oak are cited to [1]. But that paper doesn't say poplar and oak. It says Quercus and Populus trunks. While oak and poplar are in the Quercus and Populus families, they're not the only ones. For example, Quercus praeco isn't oak. I don't know anything about taxonomy though, so maybe I'm missing something. InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC) InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)- Quercus redirects to Oak, my friend. Seems like we consider it equivalent even if there may be technically some species exceptions. Seems to me that if the reference is using a general genus term like Quercus and Populus, it is just as accurate to use the more common terms of oak and poplar for our readers' sake. SilverserenC 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah fair enough. I just wanted to spot check a random line to see if everything verified. Besides the note I made above everything checked out. I just looked at a couple more random lines right now and they check out too. I don't really see the point in delisting this. InfernoHues (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Quercus redirects to Oak, my friend. Seems like we consider it equivalent even if there may be technically some species exceptions. Seems to me that if the reference is using a general genus term like Quercus and Populus, it is just as accurate to use the more common terms of oak and poplar for our readers' sake. SilverserenC 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- This sentence does not seem to be backed up by the source:
"Previously considered native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe, M. mucida has been increasingly observed across most European countries and globally."
InfernoHues (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)- That's...literally what that paper is about. How it was originally described in Europe, then later in Australia by other researchers under other names that were then folded into M. mucida and the paper itself is about describing them newly in Tasmania, along with the two other Multiclavula species. Perhaps the years when things were described could be added to make things more clear of when these distinctions were made (since even the reference is from 1986, so not exactly new at this point), but otherwise, the text in the article is a proper summary of its material. SilverserenC 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- The source doesn't say "native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe," it says "known throughout the north temperate zone," a much bigger area. InfernoHues (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- The north temperate zone is stated in the source because that was the range after the folding in of the other species names that were subsequently found to be the same as M. mucida (so Clavaria and Lentaria). That's why the section on M. mucida further down in the paper states "
Thus, identification of the European taxon has been rather secure and all other distributions have been compared to it
", because the original description for M. mucida was the European taxon and not the other two. SilverserenC 03:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)- Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't mention "Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- True, that would be the range described in the sources used in the paper, the one by Petersen (1967) that is discussed in the first paragraph of the current reference's abstract. Do you want that to also be added as a source? SilverserenC 03:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't mention "Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- The north temperate zone is stated in the source because that was the range after the folding in of the other species names that were subsequently found to be the same as M. mucida (so Clavaria and Lentaria). That's why the section on M. mucida further down in the paper states "
- The source doesn't say "native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe," it says "known throughout the north temperate zone," a much bigger area. InfernoHues (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- That's...literally what that paper is about. How it was originally described in Europe, then later in Australia by other researchers under other names that were then folded into M. mucida and the paper itself is about describing them newly in Tasmania, along with the two other Multiclavula species. Perhaps the years when things were described could be added to make things more clear of when these distinctions were made (since even the reference is from 1986, so not exactly new at this point), but otherwise, the text in the article is a proper summary of its material. SilverserenC 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Shiryaev, Anton (2008). "New and interesting clavarioid fungi from the hemiboreal zone of Finland" (PDF). Karstenia. 48: 29–32. doi:10.29203/ka.2008.426.