Talk:Hydropunctaria amphibia

Hydropunctaria amphibia 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: March 6, 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 Low-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"more or less thick, crust-like" You don't mention these things in the body.

Removed the first part, and explicitly said "crustose" in the description section. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead's a bit short; you could mention its original description in Verrucaria and potential use as a bio-indicator too.

Fattened the lead. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Passage translated by GPT-4." Do we really need to mention this? Isn't it similar to using a web translation tool like Google Translate? Especially for Latin, I can't imagine it being unreliable enough to need a disclaimer.

I was asked to do this in a recent GAN, and thought it was a good idea. I think it's just a form of WP:verifiability, and can't see any downsides to giving this information to the reader, who could then plug the text into their own preferred translation tool to compare results. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"to the Hydropunctaria" to "to Hydropunctaria"?

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"segregate genus" Link.

No link for this, but reworded for simplicity. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"very locally developed" Unclear to a non-specialist.

Reworded for clarity. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe mention "micrometre (μm)" for at least the first mention; it's not a very well-known unit for lay readers.

Sure, done. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A pseudocortex," to "The pseudocortex,"?

Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Perithecia, the...small pit" Run-on sentence, needs to be split for better readability.

Now partitioned into four short, more digestible sentences. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"key differences lies in the structure of the perithecium" to "key differences is the structure of the perithecium"?

Trimmed unneeded verbiage. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"regularly, but infrequently" Comma isn't necessary.

Removed. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"species Melarhaphe neritoides, Echinolittorina punctata." to "species Melarhaphe neritoides and Echinolittorina punctata."

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the Mediterranean, and also" Comma isn't necessary.

Trimmed. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"fringe–defined as 0.3–0.8 m (1 ft 0 in – 2 ft 7 in) above the Fucus-barnacle zone–most commonly on limestone" Bit hard to read, maybe better as "fringe (defined as 0.3–0.8 m (1 ft 0 in – 2 ft 7 in) above the Fucus-barnacle zone), most commonly on limestone"

Was trying to avoid nested parentheses, but yeah, the nested endashes aren't any better ... changed. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine.
I checked Scholar and the article seems to cover nearly all the literature available on the species.
The refs are all reliable and formatted correctly.
Excellent work on this, just some comments on the prose from me. I'll do some spot-checks later. AryKun (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you! My changes are these. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks: No issues found.
- "Synonymy. Current Name: Hydropunctaria amphibia (Clemente) Cl. Roux, in Roux, Masson, Bricaud, Coste & Poumarat, Bull. Soc. linn. Provence, num. spéc. 14: 108 (2011)". Species Fungorum.
- Roux, C.; Masson, D.; Bricaud, O.; Coste, C.; Poumarat, S. (2011). "Flore et végétation des lichens et champignons lichénicoles de quatre réserves naturelles des Pyrénées-Orientales (France)" (PDF). Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Provence (in French).
- Taylor, Ronald M. (1982). Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States. Lichens (Ascomycetes) of the Intertidal Region (Report). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular. Vol. 446. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service.
- Brodo, Irwin (1995). "Lichens and lichenicolous fungi of the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada. 1. Introduction and new records for B.C., Canada and North America". Mycotaxon.
I'll pass right now, but would recommend adding a translated title for the French journal article and removing any ResearchGate links for possible copyvio concerns.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed