Talk:Solorina crocea

Solorina crocea 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: October 5, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Solorina crocea appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 November 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the orange chocolate chip lichen (pictured) was given its common name because of its fruitbodies that look like chocolate?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Solorina crocea.

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:Solorina crocea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review.

What does "cortex" mean in this context? It strikes me as undefined jargon.

Now linked and glossed. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a single transverse septum" is also a little jargon-y.

Septum now linked. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" In S. crocoides, the spores" Do you mean S. crocea? If not, why are you telling us about a different species?

My error is now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that there weren't more details about algal partners in the 'Species interactions' section -- as it is, it's all about fungal infections.

I've added some more info about the bacteria associated with the lichen so the section is not quite so fungi-centric. I wasn't able to find much about the photobionts that I thought was worthy of adding. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solorina crocea microscopy.png Technically, there's an issue here. The book was published in the UK, but there's only a PD tag for the US. To be "public domain" enough for Commons, an image must be public domain in the US and in the source country.

Would switching the tag to PD-US-expired (rather than PD-US) fix this? Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cole died in 1900 (see here and the work was published in 1884, so it's in the public domain in the UK too (that's life + 70 years for last surviving author/editor). MeegsC (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this suggests Cole himself was the "illustrator". MeegsC (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I have updated the image page to reflect this. It's definitely PD in both the UK and the US, and now has the appropriate tags demonstrating this. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few small inconsistencies in the referencing, but certainly not anything I should be picking fault with at GAC. All sources look fine, and two spotchecks looked good. Other images fine. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are fine, thanks. Appreciate the review! Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I went through the citations again and fixed some things that you may have been alluding to; am happy to have reference consistency nitpicked! Esculenta (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've no further comments. If this was at FAC, I think I might be worried that the article comes across as a little technical. But I appreciate more than anyone (as a non-scientist mycophile!) how technical the subject is. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Orange chocolate chip lichen in British Columbia

... that the orange chocolate chip lichen (pictured) has a distinctive colour scheme? Source: the "distinctive" seems to be in Geiser, Linda; McCune, Bruce (1997). Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest (2nd ed.); but although it's only available offline, that claim seems pretty solid if you look at the picture
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mahurangi Harbour
- Comment: Open to improvements to the hook, I don't know how to make it "hookier".

Improved to Good Article status by Esculenta (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Esculenta and LordPeterII: I think the plant's name by itself is hooky, but the current hook is too vague. If you can find a source about the origin of the "orange chocolate chip" name, maybe that could work as a hook? It could even complement the image well, since the current image doesn't show the "distinctive colour scheme" well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was intrigued by the venacular name, but the article does not explain how it got that much. Since sadly, page 655 of the relevant source is omitted on Google books, I would have to rely on @Esculenta to hopefully have access to that source. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Peter. I guess I'll wait for Esculenta to respond here before continuing the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: as the nominator, I'd argue that you'd be the one responsible for pushing the nomination towards the finish line – I'd consider it to be unfair to hinge the nomination on Esculenta doing work they never signed up for. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The issue here is that it is Esculenta that has access to the article's sources and not Peter. In theory perhaps another source could be found, but Esculenta is the subject expert in this case and thus may have better access to relevant material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: such is the hazard of drive-by nominations; it is the nominator's responsibility to familiarize themselves with the article's sourcing and content should a problem arise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: It is true, it's primarily my responsibility. I'll try searching some more, but unless I can find the requested info, I'll have to think of another hook or let this nom go. Will report back. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Actually, I just found it: It's in https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01425.x and now also in the article: the "chocolate chip" name refers to the large brownish fruitbodies (ascomata), which have an appearance similar to chocolate (article wording). Thus I propose

ALT1 ... that the orange chocolate chip lichen (pictured) was given its common name because of its fruitbodies, which look like chocolate?

Is that better? I could find nothing about the taste by the way, but must assume that the similarity ends there. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great hook and I think it complements the image well! I could wait a few more days to hear Esculenta's thoughts but otherwise I can do a full review soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Esculenta hasn't responded, I'll be finishing the review now. The article was nominated for DYK one week after it was promoted to GA status so it just barely made it. All parts of the article are cited properly, including the hook. The hook is cited inline and I was able to verify it in the source. The image is suitable and complements the hooks very well. A QPQ has been provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lichens do not consist of only the fungal partner

This is an article about a fungus, but for some reason the article calls it a "lichen". That's like calling a grass an "ecosystem". It includes the algal symbiont as a mere adjunct of the fungus (or something, it really isn't even that clear).

Would anyone object to my fixing it call S. crocea a fungus, which after all is what it is? IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lichen is a fungus in a symbiotic association with algae (and possibly other microorganisms). So by calling it a lichen (which it is), one is already implicitly acknowledging the fungal component, and expressing in a single word the implied symbiosis. So, yes, I would object to the oversimplification ("fixing") that would occur if one were to call it a fungus. I sometimes use the phrase "lichen-forming fungus" or "lichenised fungus", but editorial discretion allows me to just call it a lichen. How is it like calling a grass an ecosystem? Esculenta (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]