Talk:Caliciaceae

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Caliciaceae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Really great to see a lichen article at GAC -- we've plenty of good articles about mushrooms, but precious few about lichen. Review to follow. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the surface of its host." What does host refer to, here?
  • Changed to the more accurate "substrate" (a rock doesn't fit the definition of "host"). Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Caliciaceae was created in 1826" Again, I think this will throw some readers. We have an article on species description, but I realise that this isn't a species. I don't have an easy solution, sorry.
  • Switched "created" to "circumscribed" (+ link). Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to talk about the use of small caps for authorities. I realise that this is sometimes used in biological literature, but it's not mentioned at WP:SMALLCAPS, nor (in my experience) is it common practice on Wikipedia. Are you aware of a guideline that recommends their use?
  • No, not that I'm aware of. I've had the authorities/years changed to this formatting on some articles I've written, so that's how I became aware of it, and why I thought it was encouraged. I do recall reading [1], where ​ one experienced editor says "it's a very well established convention here". Since then, I've changed the authority formatting to this on dozens (hundreds?) of lichen articles. Would be good to know if my thinking is wrong about this. Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, small caps is emphatically not the convention here. The convention is to use small text for authorities. We don't use them at all in text unless it's necessary to distinguish homonyms. For names under the ICNafp, we don't usually include dates. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the info, I'll stop using this template for this purpose. I like to give the publication year as useful information for the reader, not for compliance/noncompliance with ICNafp rules. Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Since the mazaedia-producing genera of the Caliciaceae were nested within the genera Dirinaria, Pyxine, and Physcia" Should the first genera be species? Also, why no wikilinks for the genus names?
  • Corrected to species, and linked names. Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A recent (2016) large" This will quickly become (and, arguably, already is!) out of date. Could this not be changed to "A 2016"?
  • "A recent (2016) large molecular study of the Caliciaceae-Physciaceae clade has helped to sort out natural relationships in this group, and more clearly define generic delimitations." Would a cladogram help set out these relationships? You do a good job of covering some tricky content, here, but being able to see (at a glance) how the Caliciaceae relate to other taxa would be good!
  • This could be possible, give me a bit to work on this. Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried making a cladogram based on one shown in Prieto & Wedin 2016, but even a simplified version was quite large, messing with image and heading placement. I'll see if I can find a simpler cladogram that focusses more on familial and higher-level relationships. Esculenta (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appressed foliose growth form (like small leaves pressed flat against the substrate)" appressed and substrate are both undefined jargon. Also, this paragraph explains that some members of the Caliciaceae lack mazaedia, but the lead says that the presence of a mazaedium "characterizes" the family. It should probably be made clear in the lead that not all members of the family have these features -- and, for that matter, that not all taxa with these features are part of the family.
  • A lot of jargon in the description section -- we either need wikilinks, explanations, or rephrasing into plainer English, I fear. thallus, verrucose, exciple, hyaline (incidentally, hyaline isn't a colour -- and is linked later), non-septate, secondary chemistry
  • Have another look and let me know if you think it needs more work. Esculenta (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The excipulum is the layer of hyphae upon which rests the ascus) is either" Copyediting error, I think?
  • "Chemicals that are commonly reported from the family are depsides (including atranorin), terpenes, depsidones (e.g., norstictic acid), lichexanthone." and lichexanthone? and lichexanthones?
  • "Cyphelium was synonymized with Calicium in 2016.[16] Both Dirinastrum and Hafellia are synonymous with Buellia. " Two worries: 1) Why are you including this information? (Why here? What's the reference?) And 2) If these are synonyms, should we really have articles about them?
  • I've added some text to help explain why these names are mentioned, and included citations. No, they shouldn't have articles anymore, and fixing them is on my list of things to do! Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The photobiont partner is from the green algal genus Trebouxia,[17] although Stichococcus has been recorded with Calicium." Does this belong in the lead? It strikes me as important ecological information.
  • "the Caliciales sensu" sensu stricto? If so, a link would be good (and I'd italicise, as it's a Latin term).
  • In the sense of someone else's concept of the order; reworded. Esculenta (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd love to see more pictures. I'd consider, for example, creating a table for the genera so that you could include one picture per genus. You could also include type species. But I'm certainly not insisting on any of that; just personal preference.
  • I'd love to create a table in the way you mention, but there would just be too many holes as many genera aren't represented by any available pictures. I'll see what I can do about about fitting in more images, though. Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added some more. I've got some room in the "Systematics" section, and if the cladogram is a bust, I'll see if I can fit a "historical" image in there. Esculenta (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any other information about "significance"? The note about the bioindicator species is great, but are there any other commercially, scientifically, ecologically, or culturally important species?
  • Searched the literature for stuff to add to this, but it's not really a "significant" family other than intrinsic interest to lichenologists. I did source the fact that it has no known economic significance! Esculenta (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No concern about the images. All sources look appropriately scholarly. And please double-check my edits! I realise some of these go a little beyond GAC-level recommendations, but I sincerely hope you'll consider sending this to FAC afterwards, and I hope that these comments will be helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that primary sources, as have been added after the genus names and authorities in the list, are not required, and are not acceptable as a support for the correctness of the name + authority. A secondary source must be used for this – which is the case, since the list is sourced to Species Fungorum. An author may claim to be the first to have published a name, but only a secondary source that reviews multiple names can say that no-one else did so before, or that this is currently the name that they accept as correct. It's not wrong to include all the primary references, but it's unusual, and not to be used as a precedent. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These primary sources aren't used as "support for the correctness of the name + authority"; there's already a secondary source cited in the article for that purpose. I've given the primary references so the reader can have easy access to them in one location. Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Esculenta: sure, and I made that point above. I was just concerned to make it clear that providing these is unusual and not required, although of course not wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, the article is looking much improved -- and it was already very strong. I do think there may be a bit more moving around of images before things are looking balanced, but I am thrilled to see more pictures! I put four in {{multiple image}}; that template can also be used vertically. (None of this is essential for GAC, but maybe something to think about for FAC.)

  • "another characteristic of Caliciaceae" Again, not all species have this, which I think is what some readers might assume from this phrasing.
  • "by French botanist François Fulgis Chevallier" If this is written in British English, false titles are non-standard; this should be the French botanist. Also "Swedish lichenologist Leif Tibell"
  • appressed is jargon
  • True, but the parenthetical explanation shortly following explains the term "appressed foliose". Do you think it would be better if instead I changed "appressed foliose growth form" to "pressed-flat foliose growth form" or perhaps "are distinguished from other Caliciaceae in a growth form resembling small leaves pressed flat against the substrate (appressed foliose)," Esculenta (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken on the explanation. I like the last wording, but I'll leave it to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And some comments looking towards FAC:

  • "I wonder if it's worth renaming the conservation section something like "Conservation and human use"."
  • Yes; I split it into two sections and found a bit to add to "Human uses". Esculenta (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pleased to hear you're looking into the issue of outdated genera having articles; I do recommend updating that before nominating at FAC (if that's your plan)
  • Life is an MDPI journal; you might expect some questions about that at FAC, as the publisher doesn't have the best reputation. I certainly don't object to its presence.
  • I didn't know what this negative reputation was about, but I poked around and found out why. I'm sure their editorial standards have improved since the Theory of Everything paper! Esculenta (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to understand the formatting on the Vainio reference.
  • My error, I had it formatted as cite journal instead of as a series in cite book. Esculenta (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But very happy. A cladogram would be a great addition if you can make it work, but not at all essential for GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few replies above; if you could look into the image issue, I think I'd be happy to promote after a final sweep. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what to do about that. Can I simply change the license to PD-old, even though the web site I got it from claims a by-NC-3.0? Esculenta (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • by-NC-3.0 wouldn't be "free" by Wikipedia's standards anyway! Let me look into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've updated to a PD tag. The long and short of it is that people who create "faithful reproductions" of 2d PD works (e.g., scans) can claim copyright in some jurisdictions, but not the US, and a decision has been made on Commons/Wikipedia that "we" are happy to treat these faithful reproductions as PD. (At the same time, we have relationships with museums and galleries that pull in the other direction, and we treat their scans as CC, so there's probably a reckoning there that will happen at some point...) You can see more at Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag or Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great article, and I'm happy to promote it. I do hope you'll think about FAC! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliciaceae&oldid=1200535940"