Talk:Solorina crocea/GA1

GA Review

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

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]