Talk:Buellia frigida/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, I appreciate it. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images fine.

Reference for the diagnosis? Whose translation? (I.e., is it a public domain translation?) I note that the MOS is generally not keen on wikilinks in quotes, but I don't mind them.

It's a GPT4-assisted translation. Yep, it's a machine translation/LLM (and I understand the caveats at the now quite-outdated advice at WP:MACHINE), but from my own experience (i.e. years of reading original Latin descriptions), it's a quite good translation. I read WP:HOWTRANS, but am unclear how to acknowledge the GPT translation, or if it's required. Any ideas? Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the missing MacKenzie suggested synonym to the taxobox. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is! The second "ecology" section is now more appropriately named "Physiological adaptations and growth"

Some inconsistency on use of -ise and -ize. Both are acceptable in British English; just aim for consistency.

Rewrote and hopefully clarified this text. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"these experiments provide essential insights" This is a nice example of some slight wordiness; it borders on editorialising. I suspect the writing could be a little smoother in places. (Some of the ecological information felt a little repetitive, for instance -- but perhaps that will be filtered out if you manage to restructure things a little to avoid multiple ecology sections.) I suspect the writing falls short of the brilliant prose called for at FAC, but I appreciate that the article isn't currently at FAC!
"emphasizing the intricate nature of lichen adaptation to non-terrestrial environments" Ditto on the edititorialising. I don't think these are the only examples.

Thanks for this; I've gone through the article again and reduced examples of this that I could spot. I may try FAC for this article in the future, so please point out any more places you see where the prose could be tightened. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is just my ignorance, but I don't really know what "genetic integrity" means in this context.

I reworded to remove this phrase entirely; let me know if the new text is better. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again:

I think you should probably acknowledge that the translation is ChatGPT-assisted. Maybe a footnote.

No biggie for GA purposes, but I might like to hear a bit more about the species of birds referred to in the ecology section.

The only extra info the source had was that the birds are mostly petrels, so I added that. Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I'm still struggling with the final paragraph, but that may be my problem.

I redid the final two paragraphs; any better? Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your helpful suggestions. Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking great, and I'm now very happy to promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]