Talk:Punctelia

Punctelia 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: January 18, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Fungi: Lichens Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Esculenta (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Spotchecks:
- "However, P. constantimontium and P. subpraesignis have been recorded utilising cement mortar as a growing surface in Verónica, Buenos Aires." is sourced to this source which supports the information
- "A 2005 molecular phylogenetic analysis confirmed their genetic independence from Parmelia, and established genus boundaries" is sourced to this source which supports the information
- "The size and shape of the conidia is an important character in some instances; for example, P. graminicola and P. hypoleucites are morphologically indistinguishable from each other, and they can only be reliably identified by differences in their conidia" is sourced to this source which supports the information (after I realized that graminicola=semansiana)
Lead:
- "The genus is cosmopolitan" given this is the lead - perhaps "The genus is cosmopolitan (occurs worldwide), "?
  - I've put the word "distribution" in the text, which I think should make it clear. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Systematics:
- "this cosmopolitan lichen in 1807" this isP. borreri? Perhaps this could be made clearer?
  - Clarified. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetics:
- "Although the authors recognized Nesolechia's place in Parmeliaceae" can we clarify that "the authors" here are the authors of the review that disagreed with Divakar? Why do we identify Divakar but not the authors of the disagreeing review?
  - All authors have now been identified in text. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Description:
- "Pseudocyphellae are termed conspicuous when then can be viewed" do you mean "Pseudocyphellae are termed conspicuous when they can be viewed"?
  - Yes, fixed. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "size from 10–27 to 6–18 μm" link/description for "μm" please? Oh, I see it's linked in the next mention - this should be at the first mention.
  - Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "They are short rods measuring" I think "These are short rods" would read better
  - Agree, done. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The size and shape of the conidia is an important character in some instances" perhaps "The size and shape of the conidia is an important characteristic in some species"?
  - Sure, done. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review, much appreciated. My changes are these.Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These look good, passing this now. (The other lichen will be this weekend, I have to take the truck to the shop for scheduled maintenance which is going to pretty much wipe my day out... heh) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]