Talk:Pilophorus acicularis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this by chance in the DYK queue- I think I may have actually beaten the bot! It's nice to see a lichen at GAC; it won't be our first, but it's certainly not common.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
See below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
See below.

B. Focused:
See below.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

What's going on with ref 3? "Fries Th"?
"genera in the next few decades, including Cenomyces acicularis" Rephrase? Cenomyces acicularis is not a genus
"In 1970, William Louis Culberson considered the name "Pilophoron (Tuck.) Th.Fr." the correct name for the genus because Fries had based his name Pilophorus on the section Pilophoron of Stereocaulon, which was described by Edward Tuckerman,[7] and which subsequently must be regarded as a new combination." Rather long and complicated sentence- could it be cut up?
It is implied at the start of paragraph 2 of "History, taxonomy and phylogeny" that it was considered the type species of the genus, but then P. fibula is mentioned.
I'm not sure I understand the conclusion of the second paragraph; so, Culberson comes along and says the name of the genus is wrong and that this species should be the type species, then some others say he is wrong? So, the genus name stays the same, does this remain the type species? I'm not entirely certain I see the relavance of the genus name debate to this article apart from the designation of this species as the type species.

I thought about it, and I agree with you. I've completely axed the paragraph, but have saved it for later deposition into the genus article. Sasata (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The language in the description is very technical in places; even some words in definitions (evanescent, apothecial) would be alien to a lot of readers
pseudopodetia?
"they are rarely erect pin-like and 1 cm high. Rarely, some specimens" Repetition of rarely- I don't think rarely is the best word, as that has negative connotations that it is something that will not be encountered, rather than something that does rarely happen, if you see what I mean.
"The apothecia (reproductive structure covered with the spore-producing asci) are abundant," You bounce between singular and plural here
"a fertile tissue layer where asci are arise and spores are produced" Rephrase?
"But usually" Not great to start a sentence with "but"
"columella"?
"but it is much shorter—up to 1.5 cm (0.6 in) long" What is shorter?
"isousnic acid" Link?
"and also frequently found in rocky roadcuts" and is?
I don't really get an idea of how rare it is; is it a species commonly encountered?

I checked all my sources again, but none commit to defining its frequency. I'd say "not uncommon", based on the number of photos available on the net. I need to buy some lichen field guides (I love a good excuse to buy more books!) Sasata (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really expand on the nitrogen thing, but I assume there is nothing much to say- is there any research on the species's contribution to the ecosystem? Any uses for it?

There's nothing really specific to this species... it's well-established in general that tripartite lichens are efficient nitrogen fixers and are collectively important contributors to nitrogen cycling, but discussion belongs in a much broader article, like lichen, or maybe someday Environmental role of lichens. Sasata (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The research and sources are sound, and it feels pretty complete. The prose didn't seem to flow so well for me, but that's probably because I don't know lichen as well as I know mushrooms. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review! I will address your concerns when I get back later tonight. I don't really know lichens well either, and a lot of the terms are somewhat foreign to me too... will try to smooth it out. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the prose is smoother now and the jargon reduced with this edit. Your comments above that I haven't responded to above were straightforward. Let me know if you think it needs further work. Sasata (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed podetia > pseudopodetia in those edits, looking at this glossary has left me pretty confused as to what the difference is and what makes these "fake". Since we have no podetia article, or glossary of lichenological terms (yet!), do you think you could explain why these are pseudopodetia and not podetia? SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Podetia are made of generative hyphae; pseudopodetia resemble podetia but are made of vegetative tissue. It's slightly more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. That glossary article is a great idea, It would be great to have something like that to be able to link to. Will add it on my "list". Sasata (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that. There is a glossary of botanical terms if you're looking for inspiration! SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this reads a lot better now, I'm personally satisfied. I'm promoting it; nice work! J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]