Talk:Cetrelia

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Esculenta in topic GA Review

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 00:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply


Initial thoughts

edit

Lead

edit
  • The lead is far too short and doesn't adequately cover the article contents. Neither § Conservation nor § Uses are in the lead.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is too technical and uses too much WP:JARGON—thallus, cortex, holdfasts, rhizines, substrate, propagules, medulla. No need to remove them all, but replace what can be and explain more please. Please try to describe the genus with less technical language in the lead, going into technical detail in § Description.
  • Although 19 Cetrelia species have been described, some authorities prefer to consider the morphologically similar taxa as chemotypes of the same species. Molecular phylogenetic analyses suggests that the chemical races are best treated as distinct species. ← It seems like you're taking a position on the science here. Is it really settled?
  • Not trying to take a position, just trying to summarize the conclusion from the 2019 molecular study discussed in the second paragraph of "Phylogeny", but am open to suggestions for alternative wording. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Systematics

edit
  • The taxonomical locations of species in this genus before the work of the Culbersons really belong at the beginning of the history and not the end.
  • Are the two red-linked names really notable enough people to have their own articles? Seems overlinked.
  • I removed one, but the other is most definitely notable and should have his name associated with the concept he introduced. Esculenta (talk)
  • @Esculenta: I was trying to say that the sentence The generic name Cetrelia combines Parmelia and Cetraria, the two genera in which most of the species were originally classified., perhaps expanded with more information about the taxonomic classification of the species now considered part of Cetrelia before the existence of Cetrelia, doesn't belong at the bottom of the history section, but at the top, because in chronological terms it's first. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 10:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Phylogeny

edit
  • I view the use of the phraseology Recent (2019) WP:DATED/anti-WP:ENDURE and would prefer a version without Recent.
  • Please clean up en dashes (–) in this section and elsewhere. Often you're using them when you want em dashes instead.

Description

edit
  • Grammar—I think the sentence with all the chemicals is better written as Other secondary chemicals that have been identified in this genus are: alectoronic, anziaic, collatolic, imbricaric, microphyllinic, olivetoric, perlatolic, and physodic acids. This sentence seems overlinked. Are these chemicals all notable? Could articles even be created about all of them? I can't find much information at all about some of these lichen metabolites, and would struggle to write some of these articles, but maybe you've better sources.

Species

edit
  • This section is a bit confusing because it says there are nineteen species in the genus, but then cites a reliable source, Species Fungorum, as only including five. Again, is the science settled? Listing nineteen definitive species if not seems wrong.
  • 19 species have been formally described in this genus. I mentioned Species Fungorum's opinion on accepted species (and it's only an opinion, albeit an important one) and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I noticed that SF has since added another species to their "accepted" list (this can be seen when searching the SF website, but it hasn't yet been disseminated in an update at the Catalog of Life site, used as the source here). Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Conservation

edit
  • What, if anything, is being done to help? Are the species which are endangered growable in captivity?

Uses

edit
  • This section seems short, not mentioning the food coloring use of violaxanthin.
  • What lichen metabolites contribute most to the use of C. braunsiana in dyes?
  • Raw material for antibiotics—what? Please explain.
  • @Esculenta: I did some research on my own and I think that what is being said is that lichens are not used in the pharmaceutical industry for any drugs we consider "approved antibiotics". Rather, lichens have antibiotic properties which leads to their use in traditional medicine around the world.[1] A study of a combination of different lichen extracts seems to show its antibiotic effects, but I'm unsure of the reliability of the journal.[2] Nevertheless, I think this helps to explain what they were trying to say. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA criterion 6

edit
  • This article actually seems over illustrated to me, but not too much. I would make two removals: the image from the Tokyo museum is of perhaps uncertain copyright, as some museums claim copyright on images taken within, and I'm sure of Japanese law. Either way, this image is the lowest quality in the article: unnatural, manmade location; has an unnecessary label; bad lighting; low resolution. Also, I don't see a good reason to allow for a MOS:SANDWICH in either this case or in the case of the chemical diagram of violaxanthin, which also seems irrelevant (MOS:IRELEV).

@Esculenta: Once the above are handled, feel free to ping me and I'll carry out a final review. If not, I'll carry one out in seven days—unclear to me at this moment if it'd pass w/no changes, but it might. Definitely make changes or provide answers if you can. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 00:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Psiĥedelisto: Thanks for your helpful review. I've responded to each of your points above, with a request for clarification on one. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Esculenta: Looks good! Clarification provided. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 10:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Psiĥedelisto: The last two points have been addressed above. Esculenta (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Final review

edit
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Thanks Esculenta for the prompt corrections. I do apologize if some of my comments were dumb, I do not edit taxonomy articles and have little knowledge of the subject, so I just treated this review as a reader who for some reason needed to know a bunch about sea-storm lichens ASAP. Please let me know how I did, I am pleased to   pass the article as a GA. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 13:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article is definitely better now after your review, so I consider that a win! Thanks again. Esculenta (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply