Talk:Punctelia borreri

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


GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have a look soon, but as usual with the caveat that I'm by no means an expert on he topic. At first glance there are some duplinks, like Iberian Peninsula, rhizines and Syo Kurokawa.
  • Have removed several, and am comfortable with the very few that remain. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give nationalities and occupations for some people, but not others.
  • I've gone with the general philosophy of giving this information for the "big" names in the history of this species and leaving it out for others. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "noting that it "is now usually known as Punctelia borreri (Sm.) Krog"." This begs further explanation, as Krog is not mentioned until that point. How does she enter the picture of the naming?
  • I've switched the order of paragraphs so that Krog and her work is introduced before this sentence. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asahina just links to a surname article in the first mention in the infobox. Also, probably only needs a single link there.
  • "The nomenclatural authority Index Fungorum suggests that" The date of this could be stated.
  • I don't think it's necessary here, as the invalidity of the publication discussed is not time-dependent. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ended up giving a date for the authorship opinions of both major fungal nomenclature sites. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article states that "A name is not validly published when it is not accepted by its author in the original publication ... when it is merely cited as a synonym"." But from reading the article, that doesn't seem to be what Smith did?
  • I've added some material that I hope will make this authorship issue less confusingly written. How is it now? Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "help resolve generic concepts" I'm not sure most readers would understand this wording.
  • Ok, trimmed that bit and it still says basically the same thing. Esculenta (talk)
  • I wonder if you should list authors (or a least lead authors et al.) for the DNA studies as you do with the earlier revisions?
  • I thought about it, but decided not to in this case. Two out of the three studies mentioned deal with Punctelia phylogenetics only peripherally, so it seems a bit name-droppy to list authors for these. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More recent (2016)" Probably not very useful to say "recent", his article will probably exist for decades to come.
  • "Cladogram showing the phylogeny of Punctelia borreri" You could state the year in the caption, so readers can connect it with the article text.
  • "Several endophytic fungi have been" Could be briefly explained in parenthesis what this is.
  • "Punctelia borreri in used in" Is used.
  • ""curing blurred vision, bleeding from uterus, bleaching from external injuries, sores and swelling, chronic dermatitis, and localized swelling"." What is this quoted from, and why does it need to be a quote? Looks a bit out of place when there's no attribution.
  • Reworded the quote, and changed to past tense to align best with source. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Traditional Chinese medicine" Does the t need to be capitalised here?
  • Give dates for the studies mentioned under Human uses and research?
  • Decided not to, as readers can see publication dates readily for themselves if they want. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but became very common in the previous decade" A bit difficult to figure out what decade is meant, could be more specific. Also, if you mean the last ten years, that will not really make sense in the coming decades.
  • Rewrote text; decade has disappeared. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of Habitat and distribution is a long wall of text that is difficult to parse, could it be broken up?
  • "In an Dutch study" A.
  • "was recorded growing on Norway maple, Birch" Don't think birch should be capitalised?
  • "When the municipal council of Leusden decided to replace the lampshades of the streetlights, it was discovered that some of these fixtures, which had been located in a urban tree-rich environment for 25 to 40 years, were covered with lichens, sometimes completely. In one case, P. borreri covered about 80% of the surface of the plastic lampshade, which was remarkable considering that the lichen was not known to exist in the Netherlands until the 1990s." You should mention the lampshades were of plastic by their first mention, and mention earlier (by the city name?) which country this was.
  • "measuring 4–8 mm (0.2–0.3 in) broad." In width?
  • "they are lecanorine in form with a width of 2–8 mm (0.08–0.3 in), and a thalline margin that is often sorediate." Should there be a "with" before "a thalline margin"?
  • "Because of the rarity of apothecia, the lichen is expected to reproduce largely asexually" I think "thought to" would be more understandable than "expected to", because the latter almost makes it seems like it can do both.
  • "Punctelia reddenda, another member of the P. borreri species group" You haven't referred to it as species group before this point, you could spell it out at "were referred to as the Parmelia borreri group", ad link it.
  • "Described by Syo Kurokawa from Peru and Mexico in 1999, Flavopunctelia borrerioides" Not sure you need to mention who described this other species and when, but I think it would be interesting to note if the species is named for resembling the subject of this article, which seems to be the case, "borrerioides".
  • Link Parmeliaceae in article body too.
  • You use both ise and ize spellings, should be consistent.
  • Now hopefully consistently in Br. Eng. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the type species of the Punctelia by Norwegian lichenologist Hildur Krog when she circumscribed the new genus in 1982" Why definite article in front of the genus name?
  • "component of some traditional medicines" The article body only mentions Chinese?
  • A relic of a previous version ... It's also used in Indian traditional medicine, but I can't source this as it's apparently from a predatory source. Now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now, thanks! Will start working on these. Esculenta (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk, I've finished up with the responses above. Very helpful review, made me think carefully about the text. Let me know if anything else needs work. Thanks, Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look nice, so I'll promote now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punctelia_borreri&oldid=1204611907"