Talk:Cladoniaceae/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2024 (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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Firstly, this is a fine article and it could pass now with few worries. However I have some small items that may be worth mentioning.

The lead usefully mentions and links reindeer moss, but this is not mentioned in the text (the Habitat section would be an ideal place).

Reindeer moss is now discussed in article text, and pictured in Habitat section. Esculenta (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's usefulness to the general reader would be much enhanced by some illustrations of the family's economic value, and of its wide range of habitats, which would go well as a small gallery in the Habitat section. It would be good to see an extensive carpet of reindeer moss, preferably with some reindeer eating it. It's interesting that it is not just a subarctic group, for instance, so perhaps we could have images of a northern and a subtropical species-in-its-habitat, for instance.

Have expanded this part with more information, still looking ... Esculenta (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has images of reindeer moss carpet and grazing caribou. Still looking for a suitable subtropical Cladonia pic. Esculenta (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A map of the distribution would be of interest.

Not sure this would be feasible with a 500+-species family (even Ahti doesn't try this in his monograph of the family). Esculenta (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto a cladogram. A Cladonia cladogram in fact... yeah, same etymology.

Added a Cladoniaceae cladogram based on the Stenroos et al. 2019 study, which is the largest and most comprehensive for this family. Will save a more specific detailed Cladonia phylogenyy for a future expansion of that genus. Esculenta (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead usefully talks about cup lichens, but again this isn't mentioned in the body. Perhaps the Description section could be enhanced a little with common terms of this sort.

I added a paragraph to etymology (now "... and naming") that describes the main groups of English common names used for Cladonia. Esculenta (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dimorphic–consisting of two distinct forms; this particular type of growth is also known as cladoniiform. in Description: I had to read this three times before I managed to parse it properly, and I'm pretty comfortable with polysyllabic graeco-latinates, so I suggest that it be simplified (and expanded) for the general reader. The point is not that individuals *can* appear in two different forms, like having a sporophyte and a gametophyte for instance, but that they *simultaneously* grow in two different forms within the same organism.

I rewrote this paragraph with simplicity in mind. How is it now? Esculenta (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much easier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A labelled diagram would in fact be very useful on the dimorphism: it need not be complex (better if it isn't).

Have added a 1911 EB diagram as a double image to help illustrate the concept, and reworded the image caption for hopefully improved pedagogy. Esculenta (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works really well. I take back (nearly) everything I said about 1911 EB. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the dimorphic habit is again described, rather better and in different terms (without saying "dimorphic") in Development: a mixed thallus, consisting of two parts: a base, parallel to the substrate, called the primary thallus and the other erect, the secondary thallus. Perhaps the two descriptions need to be merged or harmonised in some way: the second account is not really part of Development.

Trimmed this now unnecessary duplicative description from this section. Esculenta (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

algae-containing ... the alga ...: plural or singular here? Please choose one.

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human uses ... Cladonia rangiferina grazing for reindeer in tundra must be a large economic use. That article discusses its use as human food, for aquavit, and as a medicine (but barely touches on reindeer grazing except in its lead... though it does cite Roturier et al 2017 which discusses the matter.)

Good point, I've added a full paragraph to remedy this deficiency. Esculenta (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just right! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human uses ... Cladonia lichens have been used as stand-ins for trees and shrubs in model railways. Like this, for instance. I see you have mentioned architectural models, though why those would all be in "West Germany" (where's that? ... needs updating) is a curious matter: I guess the German uses were nearly all decorative, as 3000 tonnes (3 million kilos!) would more than suffice for all the world's architects and property developers. I suspect that CGI has almost wholly supplanted architectural usage.

Added a sourced sentence about use in train modelling. Rechecked that 1979 source, and unfortunately, they don't offer any explanation for the unusual German desire for this product. Suggestions for West Germany? IMO, that's what it was called then, so I think it's fine. Esculenta (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note all the redlist redlinks in Conservation. I expect you're working on those ...

Your expectations are correct! The rest will disappear eventually ... Esculenta (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Per the growth habit comments above, Cladonia coniocraea (left) has subulate podetia, while the podetia of Cladonia fimbriata (middle) feature cup-shaped scyphi, commonly called "pixie cups", Cladonia cervicornis (right) has a more complex branching pattern. is a long and exceptionally forbidding image caption for the triple image. It would actually be clearer if there was a very short caption for each image, followed by the longer and more techie stuff as a footer. You might say "Stick", "Cup", "Stag's horn" or something of that sort, something cosy for general readers. I'd suggest having that image group alongside the "The tips of the podetia..." paragraph, too.

Done: I used their common names as the short captions, and moved the image down as suggested. Esculenta (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

begin development with the formation of a prothallus ... and subsequent stages ... would be well accompanied by an image of the stages: spore + alga -> prothallus -> ...

I'll keep an eye out for something Cladoniaceae-specific, but a quick search didn't really turn up anything particularly suitable for this. Esculenta (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd have drawn a simple diagram for this, or one could be assembled very simply with small photographs on a PowerPoint slide, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

growth dynamics of fungal meristem tissue at its apex. Two primary branching patterns exist: would similarly be well accompanied by a simple diagram of the two types. I suspect this would reduce the need for the elaborate parentheses about isotropous and anisotropous in that paragraph, and make it more likely that readers will get that far, too.

I have rewritten this paragraph, hopefully addressing why this concept is important in Cladoniaceae systematics, and simplified the delivery. Linked isotropous/anisotropous as well. I'll think about a diagram for this, but it'll likely have to be custom made. Esculenta (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

All spotchecks passed.

I'd suggest wikilinking the more famous lichenologists and early scientists, e.g. William Nylander, K. C. Goebel.

I think all appropriate links have been made (but am open to more suggestions). Esculenta (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant |authorlink= in the refs; at the moment there seem to be none of these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This should very soon be a GA. I hope some of the review comments and suggestions will prove helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review noted, thanks! I'll work on these over the weekend and drop a note when I'm done. Esculenta (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your suggestions above. Thanks again for a helpful review that resulted in much article expansion and improvement. Esculenta (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super. There are small things that could be done but I'm satisfied that the GA criteria have been met. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2024 (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.