Jump to content

Talk:Xylopsora canopeorum/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • "formally described as new to science" Sounds weird, you describe something as a species, you don't describe it as new to science. ig sp. nov. could be interpreted that way, but still sounds weird.
  • This is a standard construction. To be sure, I searched Google Scholar for "described as new to science", and there appear to be more than 6000 instances of this exact phrase in the literature. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't describe its appearance or distribution/habitat in the lead.
  • "thamnolic and friesiic acids" to "thamnolic and friesiic acid"
  • "due to habitat specialization" to "due to its habitat specialization"?
  • "severe fragmentation from historic logging" to "severe fragmentation of its range from historic logging"?
  • "canopy access" to "accessing the canopy"; also would make more sense if the fact that it grows in the canopy was mentioned earlier.
  • Link lichenologists.
  • "by the second author" Just say Bendiksby instead.
  • California doesn't need a link.
  • "i.e., plant-dwelling" You don't use i.e. for any of the other glosses.
  • "species name" would refer to the binomial, canopeorum specifically is the specific epithet.
  • "X. caradocensis" Something weird going on with the italics here.
  • This entire para has too many details without explaining the relevance of the methods and only seems to mention them because the abstract does.
  • Valid point. I added another sentence to hopefully clarify why all of these inference methods were necessary for this analysis (i.e., to overcome inherent difficulties in aligning sequences of differing lengths). Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cut, blending in color with the rest of the upper surface" to "cut and are the same color as the rest of the upper surface"?
  • "changing color in the presence of para-phenylenediamine (PD) and potassium hydroxide (K)" Probably should mention that the color change is yellow.
  • First para in similar sp. isn't cited.
  • "indicating a shared preference for the biodiverse surfaces offered by the ancient trees of these old-growth forests." Can't find where this is supported by the source.
  • "providing a unique ecosystem for this lichen species" Can't see where the source says this either.
  • Daniel, Lewis (January 6, 2024). "Coast Redwood Trees Are Enduring, Adaptable Marvels In A Warming World". Discover Magazine.
    • Source misquotes the study; the study talks about 137 sp. documented and then cites two 2007 and 2008 papers, while all of the type series Xylopsora canopeorum specimens were collected in 2015. This is why I don't like using generalist sources for scientific articles, the claim and ref should be removed.
  • Spot-checked the IUCN ref and the journal article describing the sp.
  • Photos are fine. That's all I got.
  • AryKun, thanks for another review. I think I've addressed all of your suggestions with this edit (save for a couple replied to above).
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xylopsora_canopeorum/GA1&oldid=1217351770"