Talk:Peltigera castanea

Peltigera castanea 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: June 19, 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

Passed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 19 June 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.

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 03:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 08:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I'll have this reviewed before the end of the day. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't link taxonomically

I think the link is valid and appropriate in this instance (the sentence deals specifically with taxonomic issues resulting from the species complex; we shouldn't assume that every reader will know what "taxonomically challenging" means, especially in the lead.). Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which inspired its vernacular name, chestnut pelt lichen. Shouldn't this go next to the scientific name?

(I think I understand the comment at the other Umbilicaria review now...) If the article title is at the common name, then yes, it should be more prominent in the lead sentence. Otherwise, this article meets the guidelines outlined here, which say that common name should be bolded and mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link Antarctic

This probably ventures into WP:Overlink territory. Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

irregularly shaped Needs a hyphen

Actually, "ly" adjectives aren't hyphenated (see MOS:HYPHEN; "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb..."). Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs additional citations; you are over-relying on citation 1

I disagree; citation one is the protologue and contains the most comprehensive information about the species. I think it would be unusual to not use that source predominantly, as none of the others discusses the species with that depth. Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered I recently received my new updated version of a source I was previously using in the article, and used it to add some more details. Esculenta (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent research has revealed its presence as far as northeast Greenland Grammar

Not sure what the grammar issue is here? Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"as" should be in front of northeast. I made the correction myself. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review is now done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 17 June 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.