Talk:Lichen growth forms/GA1
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MeegsC in topic GA Review
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 |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments edit
There's very little wrong with this well-cited article, so I'll have few comments to make, and they're mainly of a general kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead image group would be better arranged vertically, with the images bigger (at least as wide as those in the main text, preferably a little larger), individually captioned so the name of the growth form is visibly associated with its image, and with the caption trimmed (atm it says "from left to right / top to bottom" which makes no sense for a single row).
- The change in effect is remarkable, and for the better.
The article is inevitably rather technical. That does not mean that the first paragraph must be written in Klingon-speak. And especially, the first sentence should be simple and friendly to all, so "basidiomycete" isn't the right sort of language there, specially when the cuddly word "yeast" turns out to be the name of the linked article!
- Not sure what to do here. Not all yeasts are basidiomycete yeasts (as our article explains). Some are ascomycete yeasts, which have not been found in lichens (at least, not to date). Hence my inclusion of "basidiomycete". Given that, do you still feel just plain "yeast" is sufficient?
- For the lead, yes. If you want to talk fungal taxonomy (not sure why, in an article on form), then further down would be the place. Conclusion might be, the discussion of non-form issues might be best deleted here.
- Okay, I removed it.
- For the lead, yes. If you want to talk fungal taxonomy (not sure why, in an article on form), then further down would be the place. Conclusion might be, the discussion of non-form issues might be best deleted here.
- Not sure what to do here. Not all yeasts are basidiomycete yeasts (as our article explains). Some are ascomycete yeasts, which have not been found in lichens (at least, not to date). Hence my inclusion of "basidiomycete". Given that, do you still feel just plain "yeast" is sufficient?
I suggest that all the galleries be adjusted to "|mode=nolines" to remove the clutter of the frames, which serve no purpose here.
Chapters 1..12 are all types of growth form, whereas chapter 13 lists lookalikes. I suggest that chs 1..12 be grouped into a single chapter named "Growth forms", with 12 subsections.
That structure points up the fact that there is no introductory section, or rather, that the introduction and the article's summary have been summarily conflabulated into a composite organism, a summariduction. As WP:MOS doesn't describe such a beast, I suggest we move most of the current lead into an overview section (chapter 1). It probably needs a couple of subsections: a) about hyphal and cortical structure, and b) about the relationship of form to taxonomy. I'm not sure where the macro/micro thing fits as it doesn't seem to have much to do either with form or with taxonomy! Perhaps it doesn't belong here at all.
- I've created an overview section, and stripped out a vast majority of the three former opening paragraphs. Does this meet with your approval? Obviously, I still need to redo the lead.
- Looks the part, yes. I'm not at all objecting to a very brief "Context" section or paragraph about what a lichen is, whether there's mutual benefit to the component organisms, etc, indeed it would be a very good thing to begin the Overview with.
- Chiswick Chap, how does the overview look now? If it's okay, I'll continue on to the lede.
- Great!
- Chiswick Chap, how does the overview look now? If it's okay, I'll continue on to the lede.
- Looks the part, yes. I'm not at all objecting to a very brief "Context" section or paragraph about what a lichen is, whether there's mutual benefit to the component organisms, etc, indeed it would be a very good thing to begin the Overview with.
- I've created an overview section, and stripped out a vast majority of the three former opening paragraphs. Does this meet with your approval? Obviously, I still need to redo the lead.
I think you will then have to look at whatever is left of the lead and rewrite or extend it to provide a brief summary of the rest of the article, per the MOS.
- Okay, I think the lede is done. Can you have a look and let me know if it works for you?
- I think you've done what can be done with the material.
- Okay, I think the lede is done. Can you have a look and let me know if it works for you?
I note in passing that two sources, Nelsen and Purvis, are not used in refs. Are you in the process of adding something or are they to be removed?
- These were used in the original lede, which has been much reduced. I've removed them.
- The lookalikes chapter is conspicuously un-illustrated, in contrast to the earlier chapter's worth of material. Given that 99% of readers will have little idea even what an Usnea looks like (why don't you say "beard lichen", etc, when good English words are available?), I'd say that a photo or possibly better a small drawing would be very useful for each of the lookalike types. Obviously this can't be mandated at GA.
- Chiswick Chap, do you think I should include this section? It was suggested by another editor for terms that are used in various articles. However, these could point to the glossary instead (since they're not growth forms in the traditional sense).
- I think it's fine.
- Okay, I tweaked the wording in this section a bit to "remove the Klingon". I'll work on getting appropriate pictures.
- I think it's fine.
- Chiswick Chap, do you think I should include this section? It was suggested by another editor for terms that are used in various articles. However, these could point to the glossary instead (since they're not growth forms in the traditional sense).
"They contain atranorin (a lichen product) in the upper cortex and physodic acid (another lichen product) in the medulla." Um, so what has this to do with the growth form, and how could it help the reader?
- I've changed this to "They also share certain chemical properties in their cortex and medulla." The problem is, it isn't just the growth form that makes something a hypogymnioid lichen; they have to share the right chemical properties too. I figured I needed to explain that!
- All right, at least it's brief. I still think you're mixing up the form "hypogymnioid" with the taxonomy and biology, the nature if you like, of Hypogymnia the genus.
- Okay, I've removed the sentence completely. On a related note, should I even include Astrothelioid here? After all, it's only their spores, not their growth form, that makes an Astrothelioid lichen.
- I think you've answered your own question. You could include a mention of Astrothelioid as a footnote to the Lookalikes introduction, but it's not necessary.
- Okay, I've removed it.
- I think you've answered your own question. You could include a mention of Astrothelioid as a footnote to the Lookalikes introduction, but it's not necessary.
- Okay, I've removed the sentence completely. On a related note, should I even include Astrothelioid here? After all, it's only their spores, not their growth form, that makes an Astrothelioid lichen.
- All right, at least it's brief. I still think you're mixing up the form "hypogymnioid" with the taxonomy and biology, the nature if you like, of Hypogymnia the genus.
- I've changed this to "They also share certain chemical properties in their cortex and medulla." The problem is, it isn't just the growth form that makes something a hypogymnioid lichen; they have to share the right chemical properties too. I figured I needed to explain that!
The 'Highlight duplicate links' tool on the left points up a bit of overlinking, e.g. fruticose, epiphytic, spores, medulla.
- Where do you find the "highlight duplicate links" tool? I don't have that on my page.
- Long since forgotten how I got it. I think it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
- Thanks for that! It looks like it will prove useful...
- Long since forgotten how I got it. I think it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
- Where do you find the "highlight duplicate links" tool? I don't have that on my page.
- Few of the sources can be checked online. From my limited personal knowledge, things look reasonable, and the sources I spot-checked were fine.
Summary edit
I don't think these changes will take terribly long, and I look forward to seeing this as a Good Article shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Chiswick Chap, I'll get started on these soon, and will strike things out as I complete them. MeegsC (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, I think I've addressed all of your comments, bar the illustrations for the "look-alikes", which will take some time. Is there anything I've missed? MeegsC (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think we're all complete here. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Chiswick Chap! I really appreciate your help in making this a better article. MeegsC (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think we're all complete here. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, I think I've addressed all of your comments, bar the illustrations for the "look-alikes", which will take some time. Is there anything I've missed? MeegsC (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
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.