Talk:Enchylium limosum/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Fritzmann (message me) 22:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Xkalponik (talk · contribs) 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 10:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should finish the review today. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This characteristic often leads to its colonizing environments disrupted by human activity. Doesn't make sense
E. limosum is often underestimated and overlooked Why such phrasing?
The conservation status of E. limosum presents a nuanced picture that varies across different regions. Needs explanation
Swedish botanist Erik Acharius Rm Swedish botanist
it was reassigned by various taxonomists, and received its current accepted name Enchylium limosum in 2013 by Mónica Andrea García Otálora, Per Magnus Jørgensen, & Mats Wedin. Sketchy phrasing
Synonyms for it have included Collema forissii Szatala, Collema glaucescens Hoffm., Collema viscosum A. Massal., and others. Please improve the phrasing
The species Enchylium limosum, commonly known as lime-loving tarpaper lichen,[1] derives its name from its original classification as Collema limosum, attributed to the Swedish botanist Erik Acharius. Both scientific and common names? *Synonymy section is not needed
Finally, the altitudinal distribution of Rm finally
Commonness and rarity is not a good section name
The conservation status of the lichen species Enchylium limosum varies considerably across its known geographic range, with limited and sometimes conflicting assessments available. Unsourced
Ref 23 needs fixing
Could you add ISSNs for all the journal citations Should be done now. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xkalponik: checking in. It looks like things here have been stalled for a month. Do you still have time/interest to work through this? If not, we can archive this review. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Xkalponik is now Xoak, pinging again just in case the previous ping didn't go through; this makes two nominations that are in a similar state. (Note that archiving the review means that it is closed as unsuccessful, not held for later. A renomination can be done at a later date.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset Please see my response here. X (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All, I am procedurally closing this nomination. The nominator is welcome to re-submit the article once they are able to complete the review process. Fritzmann (message me) 22:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.