Talk:Punctelia rudecta/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 23:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this one. But I must say, I'm dismayed to learn that the lichen I've learned as Punctelia rudecta isn't! :P It may take me a few days to post my comments. MeegsC (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this. The article is already in very nice shape, but I do have a few questions/suggestions. I have this page on my watchlist, but feel free to ping me if you have any questions.

Is this article written in Canadian English or American English? We have "color" and "gray" in the Description section, but "colour" in the Human Uses section, for example. One version should be used throughout.

Have changed spelling to American English. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede, in the sentence "The lichen is quite common and widespread in the southeastern United States, although it also occurs in Canada and northern Mexico as well." you don't need both "also" and "as well". One or the other will suffice.

Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Systematics section, I'd suggest that you rework the first sentence to make it active rather than passive voice: i.e. "Swedish lichenologist Erik Acharius first described the lichen as a new species in 1814, naming it Parmelia rudecta."

Done. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hildur Krog create the genus Punctelia in 1982 specifically to include only those former Parmelia taxa with rounded pseudocyphellae? If so, it might be clearer to explain the circumscription in that way.

Added a bit to explain the rationale for circumscription. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd suggest you tweak the sentences in the Phylogeny section to include the study dates, rather than making them parenthetical; it would make the read less choppy.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Description section, in the sentence starting "The thallus of Punctelia rudecta ranges in color from dark greenish gray to almost blue gray...", there should be dashes between "greenish gray" and "blue gray".

Added. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the Description section, in the sentence reading "The lobes comprising the thallus are mostly 3–8 mm (0.1–0.3 in) wide, and are more or less covered with cylindrical to branched isidia; they are typically more numerous towards the center of the thallus." it's unclear whether the bolded "they" (my bolding) refers to the lobes or the isidia.

Clarified. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The lichen, when it has a bluish-green coloration and dense isidia, is often readily spotted from a distance." I'd suggest "can be" in place of "is often".

Sure, done. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to provide some idea of where in the United States this lichen occurs. "East" is a big area! ;) Does "temperate" exclude Florida, for example? Or the desert southwest? Does it even occur out west, just less regularly?

I've added some text and additional sources to hopefully better clarify its frequency and distribution. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a slight change of wording in the bit about it occuring in "several" Canadian provinces. 7 of 10 is more than "several". Perhaps "most"? Or listing the ones it doesn't occur in (and mentioning that it doesn't occur in any of the territories)?

Changed "several" to "most". Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In nature, O. parmeliae can grow on P. rudecta only after another lichen inhabitant, a species of Fusarium, enzymatically degrades lecanoric acid, the primary lichen compound of P. rudecta." I'm not clear: are Fusarium species lichenicolous too?

Have now mentioned that the Fusarium is an epiphytic fungus (not lichenicolous). Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did they really say "...arguably the most weediest macrolichen..."? If so, you might want to put a [sic] after weediest to let readers know it's not a typo.

Gah, no, that was my brain inserting the word "most" for some reason. Removed. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got! Other than that, it looks good. Let me know when you've had the chance to address these. MeegsC (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Thanks for taking the time to read this and helping me improve the article. I hope these edits adequately address your helpful suggestions above. Esculenta (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Esculenta. I'm happy to give this one its GA star. MeegsC (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]