Jump to content

Talk:Solorina crocea

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

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Solorina crocea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer a review.

  • What does "cortex" mean in this context? It strikes me as undefined jargon.
  • "a single transverse septum" is also a little jargon-y.
  • " In S. crocoides, the spores" Do you mean S. crocea? If not, why are you telling us about a different species?
  • I was surprised that there weren't more details about algal partners in the 'Species interactions' section -- as it is, it's all about fungal infections.
  • I've added some more info about the bacteria associated with the lichen so the section is not quite so fungi-centric. I wasn't able to find much about the photobionts that I thought was worthy of adding. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Solorina crocea microscopy.png Technically, there's an issue here. The book was published in the UK, but there's only a PD tag for the US. To be "public domain" enough for Commons, an image must be public domain in the US and in the source country.

There are a few small inconsistencies in the referencing, but certainly not anything I should be picking fault with at GAC. All sources look fine, and two spotchecks looked good. Other images fine. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are fine, thanks. Appreciate the review! Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I went through the citations again and fixed some things that you may have been alluding to; am happy to have reference consistency nitpicked! Esculenta (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've no further comments. If this was at FAC, I think I might be worried that the article comes across as a little technical. But I appreciate more than anyone (as a non-scientist mycophile!) how technical the subject is. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk18:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the orange chocolate chip lichen (pictured) has a distinctive colour scheme? Source: the "distinctive" seems to be in Geiser, Linda; McCune, Bruce (1997). Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest (2nd ed.); but although it's only available offline, that claim seems pretty solid if you look at the picture

Improved to Good Article status by Esculenta (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the response Peter. I guess I'll wait for Esculenta to respond here before continuing the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: as the nominator, I'd argue that you'd be the one responsible for pushing the nomination towards the finish line – I'd consider it to be unfair to hinge the nomination on Esculenta doing work they never signed up for. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: The issue here is that it is Esculenta that has access to the article's sources and not Peter. In theory perhaps another source could be found, but Esculenta is the subject expert in this case and thus may have better access to relevant material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: such is the hazard of drive-by nominations; it is the nominator's responsibility to familiarize themselves with the article's sourcing and content should a problem arise. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 07:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: It is true, it's primarily my responsibility. I'll try searching some more, but unless I can find the requested info, I'll have to think of another hook or let this nom go. Will report back. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Actually, I just found it: It's in https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01425.x and now also in the article: the "chocolate chip" name refers to the large brownish fruitbodies (ascomata), which have an appearance similar to chocolate (article wording). Thus I propose
Is that better? I could find nothing about the taste by the way, but must assume that the similarity ends there. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great hook and I think it complements the image well! I could wait a few more days to hear Esculenta's thoughts but otherwise I can do a full review soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Esculenta hasn't responded, I'll be finishing the review now. The article was nominated for DYK one week after it was promoted to GA status so it just barely made it. All parts of the article are cited properly, including the hook. The hook is cited inline and I was able to verify it in the source. The image is suitable and complements the hooks very well. A QPQ has been provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lichens do not consist of only the fungal partner

[edit]

This is an article about a fungus, but for some reason the article calls it a "lichen". That's like calling a grass an "ecosystem". It includes the algal symbiont as a mere adjunct of the fungus (or something, it really isn't even that clear).

Would anyone object to my fixing it call S. crocea a fungus, which after all is what it is? IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lichen is a fungus in a symbiotic association with algae (and possibly other microorganisms). So by calling it a lichen (which it is), one is already implicitly acknowledging the fungal component, and expressing in a single word the implied symbiosis. So, yes, I would object to the oversimplification ("fixing") that would occur if one were to call it a fungus. I sometimes use the phrase "lichen-forming fungus" or "lichenised fungus", but editorial discretion allows me to just call it a lichen. How is it like calling a grass an ecosystem? Esculenta (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]