Talk:Roccellaceae/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:22, 2 October 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: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 21:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soonish. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

circumscribed by the French botanist François Fulgis Chevallier in 1826. – I never saw "circumscribed" used in this context for other high-level taxon articles. Is this something specific for lichen or botany? Not sure if "erected" would be better, since he was not the only one to circumscribe the taxon?

It's pretty common phraseology in my circles, but to avoid lead sentence jargon, I've switched to "established". Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roccellaceae species typically have apotheciate or lirellate ascomata – Can we make the lead more accessible to the lay reader? Ascomata is not even linked. Why not simply "fruiting bodies"? Suggest to add an explanatory gloss.
Cosmopolitan -> "worldwide", at least in the lead? It really helps readers if you use plain-language words where they are available.
symbiotic -> link
The Chevallier quote contains many terms but no wikilinks?
The genus name Roccella, assigned by the Swiss botanist Augustin Pyramus de Candolle in 1805 – already mentioned earlier
meaning a type of lichen – wondering if this can be more specific; "type of lichen that grows on rocks" maybe, if that's the case?

I worded closer to the source ("common name for a lichen"), but there's no more specificity to be had. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

phylogenetic study – link in body at first mention (it is linked later)
basal nodes – you link "basal", but "nodes" needs linking or explanation too. Maybe add a gloss.
the sister pair Dirina-Roccella; Chiodecton natalense-Lecanactis – so this means that "Chiodecton natalense-Lecanactis" is not a sister pair? And why do you give the species name here instead of just the genus name, is it to indicate that the genus is monotypic?

Clarified that Chiodecton natalense and Lecanactis are grouped in one lineage but not necessarily a sister pair, and removed the ambiguity around why the species C. natalense was named. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roccellaceae typically has cylindrical asci, whereas Arthoniaceae have – has or have? Should be consistent here.
The reduction of the proper exciple, which is a protective layer around the hymenium, – move this explanation to where the term is first mentioned?
ascospores, hymenium, reversal, terminal taxa, hypothecia, polyphyletic, carbonaceous excipulum, iodine, clades – all of these might need a wikilink (some might already be linked but I forgot about it while reading, but please check).
These morphological traits, alongside molecular evidence, enhance the understanding of the family's evolution and help in distinguishing Roccellaceae from other families within Arthoniales. – This was kind of mentioned already, not sure what adds here, I suggest to remove it.
Similarly, the genera Dichosporidium and Mazosia, once considered part of Roccellaceae, are now recognised as belonging to this separate clade. – It makes little sense to me to explicitly mention these genera here since the previous sentence only listed "some" genera as examples anyways.
based on synapomorphies such as cortex plectenchyma and coastal habitat. – Can habitat really qualify as a "synapomorphy" (which, I thought, is always related to morphology)?

You're correct of course; I fixed my erroneous wording. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also suggested multiple evolutions – Multiple "origins"?
These initial studies provided important insights into the family's evolutionary history, revealing – Suggest to cut "provided important insights into the family's evolutionary history", I think it is unnecessary.
You very often use the word "significant", which can be WP:peacock. If something is not significant, I wouldn't expect it to be mentioned in this general article.
Good spot, I hadn't noticed this! I've "significantly" reduced the appearance of this word. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
challenging some traditional classifications based solely on morphological characteristics. – Somwhow repetitive, as you already have "The molecular data have also led to significant taxonomic revisions within the family" in the same paragraph.
fruticose (shrub-like) growth – great explanatory gloss, but why so late in the article? I would add that to the lead, too.
While many Roccellaceae have apotheciate (disc-like) or lirelliform (elongated) ascomata, some genera, such as Chiodecton, have evolved perithecioid ascomata aggregated into stroma-like structures. – Why not have a gloss for "perithecioid" too?
Image caption: "Phacographa protoparmeliae (blackened areas), shown here parasitising the thallus of Protoparmelia badia, is a member of the entirely lichenicolous genus Phacographa" – It does not become clear here that this is not a member of the family; also explain "lichenicolous" or, better, replace with "that exclusively grows on lichen".
Enterographa has the highest diversity of lichenicolous fungi in the family, with nine obligately lichenicolous species and one facultatively or doubtfully lichenicolous species out of its 55 total species. – Now I'm not sure if these lichenicolous species are members of the genus Enterographa, or if the latter is only the host?
I suggest to red-link the species mentioned under "conservation" to encourage the creation of respective articles.

This was already done.

That's all from me! All GA criteria are generally met, and the above comments are mostly nitpicks for accessibility and clarity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for a quite helpful review! I've responded to a few points individually above, but otherwise have implemented almost all of your suggestions in this edit. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that it was helpful! One more issue: In the lead, you say "The Roccellaceae are a family", but later, you say "The Roccellaceae is the largest family". I personally would treat family names as singular, but in any case, it should be consistent. In any case, I am going to promote this now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 2 October 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.