Template:Did you know nominations/Cortinarius ainsworthii

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Cortinarius ainsworthii, Cortinarius heatherae, Cortinarius britannicus, Cortinarius scoticus, Cortinarius aurae, Cortinarius subsaniosus

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

• Cortinarius ainsworthii
• Cortinarius heatherae
• Cortinarius britannicus
• Cortinarius scoticus
• Cortinarius aurae
• Cortinarius subsaniosus

)

Cortinarius ainsworthii

• ... that among Kew's highlights of species described in 2020 were six British webcaps—Cortinarius ainsworthii (pictured), C. heatherae, C. britannicus, C. scoticus, C. aurae, and C. subsaniosus? Source: "1. Six new toadstools // Six new species of webcap toadstool mushrooms have been named in the UK this year...", from "The ugliest orchid in the world tops Kew’s 2020 new species list"

Created by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 17:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

• I will review the articles shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

All of these articles:

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @J Milburn: Great work on all six pages. The articles are new enough, and even excluding the paragraph of shared text between each article, all of the pages are long enough. For all six, the copyright violation matches are to a CC-BY-4.0 source which is OK. Short quotes are taken from the Kew website for some of the pages, and some matches are proper names or phrases. The only remaining thing to do are QPQ reviews for six articles. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Many thanks. Just to confirm, do I need to do six reviews, or just one? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@J Milburn: No problem. You will need to do reviews of six articles. If you review a multiple-article nomination, that counts as multiple reviews; for instance, reviewing a nomination with 2 bolded links will count as 2 articles reviewed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll list reviews below as I complete them and ping you when I've done six. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Ok; I have done or am doing 6 reviews, so I think this should be good to go. Thanks again for taking a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@J Milburn: No problem. This should be good to go now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Telefe Mar del Plata; Template:Did you know nominations/Sandy Grant Gordon; Template:Did you know nominations/Kusarigama; Template:Did you know nominations/The Ur-Quan Masters; Template:Did you know nominations/Kitty Horrorshow; Template:Did you know nominations/Columbia Global Reports.