Talk:Teloschistaceae/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2023 (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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a well-written and well-cited article about a major lichen family. The discussion is technical but not absurdly so, and the lead is reasonably approachable.

Interesting detail on the 3 subfamilies. I looked at the cladogram to see where they'd be ... and it looks as if Caloplacoideae and Xanthorioideae either overlap (?!) or that X. is paraphyletic with respect to C.? It would, in short, be nice if you could indicate the 3 subfamilies on the cladogram, and perhaps comment on their phylogenetic validity or lack of it in the article.

Further, since Caloplaca is polyphyletic, the name ought to be marked in some way on the cladogram (or replaced with current names, though I see those aren't too popular either...). Marking could be with quotation marks ("Caloplaca": that's what I usually do, but there would be a lot of it here) or * or $, for instance.

Having thought about it, I think the cladogram I've shown is not the best one to use for this article; it's used in the original publication to illustrate higher-level relationships in the Lecanoromycetes, and you're correct that two of the subfamily clades confusingly seem to mix. I'm going to swap it with a better (more recently published, broader representation of Teloschistaceae species in the dataset) cladogram that shows the subfamilial relationships more clearly, and should show more obviously the former Caloplaca species grouped together in the Caloplacoideae. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a rain check on this one, but as this is not really a show-stopper, looking forward to the new cladogram post-GA.

I'm a bit leery of including long lists within a text article, but at least you're not attempting to go down to species level.

I've been thinking I might split off the genera to a separate list article as a possible future project. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Human interactions and uses" covers 3 subtopics: para 1 is "Economic significance"; paras 2 and 3 are "Traditional medicine"; and para 4 is "In science". Perhaps we could have subheadings along these lines (your wording may vary).

Done. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The images appear all to be correctly licensed on Commons.

Spot-checks ok, but Fries 1860 seems to be page 218 not 118? It's hard to tell as the genus names have changed.

Good catch, page was wrong; now corrected. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

Small details

"clarify our understanding" -- who's the "we" behind this? Please rephrase so there isn't an implicit all-knowing Wiki-committee.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"what he referred to as" -> "what he called".

Done. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Adaptive radiation and evolutionary diversification" is quite the mouthful for a section heading. Suggest dropping the second half.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(not GAN:) "The common and widespread Teloschistaceae species Xanthoria parietina (left) and Teloschistes chrysophthalmus" --- the latter species' article doesn't say it's common and widespread. I guess it's found across Europe, so Linnaeus easily found it?

I've expanded the origin story in the species article. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Somewhat unusually for the Teloschistaceae, members of genus Ioplaca present a somewhat umbilicate form." -- maybe reword to avoid repetition of "somewhat".

Done. Esculenta (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(not GAN:) Cinereorufa-green and Sedifolia-gray should be placed in the glossary of lichen terms, and linked.

Done, in addition to the 20 other standard insoluble lichen pigments.

Summary

This is very close to GA and needs only the smallest of adjustments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2023 (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.