Talk:Pulchrocladia retipora
Pulchrocladia retipora has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 23, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
GA Review[edit]
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pulchrocladia retipora/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see you back!! I felt bad seeing the list of lichen that's accumulated in the GANs, so I'll grab one. Always a pleasure to review your work. Page is stable and the author is the majority contributor. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Images
- Taxobox image is missing a caption
- Image rights are in order
- Some Alt text would be lovely (Optional)
- All other captions are in order.
Sources
- No concerns of reliability.
- Recommend archiving (optional)
- All linked sources manually reviewed. No dead links noted.
Copy-vios
- Random assessments of sources 1, 5, 15, and 20 found one issues.
- The sentence "Pulchrocladia retipora was the first Australian lichen to be described in a scientific publication." is word-for-word to FN 5.
- Earwig is clean otherwise.
Prose
with numerous intricate, netlike perforations
bordering on WP:PUFFERY
New Zealand's North and South Islands
link in the lead
on board the Bruni d'Entrecasteaux expeditions in 1792.
reword to 'on board Bruni d'Entrecasteaux's 1792 expedition'
genus Pulchrocladia, created in 2018
awkwardly worded
This collection was made as part of
reword to 'This sample was obtained as part of...'
first collected the lichen in 1792,
It's unclear if the collection was in 1791 or 1792. I assume the voyage took a few years, but please be more explicit.
There was debate
andit is thought to be
be more specific, WP:WEASEL
Despite some controversy
This is a vague statement
The conidiomata are terminal on branchlets
just say 'end in branchlets'
Other compounds occurring in lesser quantity...
run-on, or close to it.
absent in places or appear sparse.
unclear meaning
Nonetheless, it always remains compacted
unclear what the 'it' is
A separate description describes cushions
repetitive wording, specify who's description
In a discussion of the cover designs of the journal
repetitive, awkward wording
The development and growth dynamics of the branching pattern of Pulchrocladia retipora has been studied
Kind a meaningless sentence. Lead with why it's studied.
later made apparent by the relative angles of the meristem bundles with respect to each other.
WP:TECHNICAL
- As a whole, I fail to see why the Thallus development section should be here and not in the description. This doesn't discuss the research, instead it's just a description of the thallus formation/branching patterns.
- To me it doesn't feel like it belongs in description, as it focuses on changes in development (ontogeny) and not just a description of what it looks like. I could see it being in an independent section, but I thought it would be alright to slip it in as a subsection of research, because relative to other lichens, this species has had more research on its ontogeny owing to its unique morphology. Also, then the paragraph on resynthesis seems to logically follow, which describes some similar details of the in vitro growth of the lichen. Esculenta (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This was a joy to read, who knew lichens could read so smoothly. Not far off from GA status either, above are my immediate reccomendations. I made a few clarification/grammatical edits of my own, please review when you can. On hold. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|