Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teloschistaceae/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2023 [1].

Teloschistaceae edit

Nominator(s): Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dive into the colourful world of the Teloschistaceae, the 3rd-largest family of lichen-forming fungi with about 1000 species and more than 100 genera. I think the article is an up-to-date summary – a curated and comprehensive compendium – of the relevant literature space, and, imho, the best single source of information about this topic either online or in print. Please read and comment, and look at the many pictures of attractive orange and yellow lichens! Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • There is a huge amount of whitespace in the Description section
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Ikaeria_serusiauxii.jpg: the license mentioned in Summary is different from the one in Licensing - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced the cladogram size slightly, so that should help a little, but am open to other suggestions (whitespace doesn't show up me for unless I drag the window width to be quite large). I could put it in a show/hide template, but perhaps this sort of usage is discouraged? Have corrected the licensing on that image. I'll add alt texts, but the day is coming soon when multi-modal language modelling with image integration is built into browsers and will be able to describe images to viewers in any way they want. Thanks for the image review. Esculenta (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta:, could you move the cladogram up a bit in the article? It would still be in the "Systematics" section of the article, which seems appropriate. MeegsC (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea – done. It now starts where the bulleted summaries of the subfamilies are given, which is a logical placement. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fritz edit

  • "its their frequent anthraquinone content"
  • "the thallus (the main body of the lichen) is either leaf-like (foliose), bushy or shrub-like (fruticose) to crust-like" this clause is a little confusing to me. Is the thallus leaf-like, bushy, or shrub-like... to crust-like? I'm having a hard time visualizing the different options. Additionally, is there a reason the technical term for crust-like is not given in the same manner as foliose and fruticose?
  • Reworded this part, hopefully it's clearer? Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Teloschistaceae lichens" is there mention of the non-lichens in the lead? I noticed the first sentence says "mostly lichen-forming fungi" but then I didn't see further elaboration on the non-lichens
  • The final sentence in the lead para mentioned the 40 lichenicolous fungi in the family, but I've since added some words to make this distinction more explicit. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My next question would then be: does the second paragraph refer to all members of the family, or only the "Teloschistaceae lichens"?
  • It refers to the vast majority, 960 or so lichens, so the wording is purposeful. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the link for "thalline margins" is broken. Could that just be written "edges of the thallus"?
  • Switched to more lead-friendly wording; the link works for me. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several dozen new genera have been added" since 2013? or earlier?
  • "as ongoing molecular studies provide clearer insights into the phylogenetic relationships amongst taxa within this family" is a very dense clause to have in the lead. I think a layperson may have some difficulty here.
  • "Three Teloschistaceae species have been assessed for the global IUCN Red List." This seems very abrupt. I think elaboration on a few threats to their conservation, or other notes on their ecology, may be warranted here.
  • "that shared the typical polar-diblastic spores / now recognised as the family Teloschistaceae" I would split this into two sentences, or cut the latter part
  • "polarilocular or 4-locule ascospores" come again?
  • Trimmed some unneeded historical details in these parts, and made terms consistent. I hope it reads more smoothly now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what to télos (ends) and -schistós (split) refer? Laying it out for a dummy like me would be nice, even just a brief "referring to the split ends of the lichen in the family" or something of that ilk
  • "independent molecular studies" I only see a single study cited here
  • "which was informally introduced" what does this mean? Was it invalidly published or not published at all?
  • "Despite these results, Kondratyuk and colleagues continue to use these subfamilies" clarify which subfamilies, I thought it were referring to the three original ones until I got to the end of the paragraph
  • Also reworked this text, please let me know how it reads. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the Molecular phylogenetics section could use some work. I would suggest moving the third paragraph to the front. It gives an overview of why phylogenetics are necessary. I think the quote by Gaya and colleagues in P4 is overly long. Perhaps it could be moved to a quotebox, or just rephrased in more simple terms. I also don't see the relevance of much of P2 - I'm honestly having difficulty telling what exactly it's saying.
  • Great feedback! I used all of your suggestions and trimmed lots of complicated stuff not needed for the general audience. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for "umbilical" is also not working for me
  • This one works for me; other readers please let me know if this is a common problem. Esculenta (talk)
  • "biatorine or lecideine forms may manifest" what does it mean to manifest? Does that mean develop in a single specimen, or arise evolutionarily within a clade, or something else?
  • Again, reworked over my confusing prose, hopefully is clearer now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asexual reproduction within this family, results in the formation of pycnidial conidiomata that yield clear, either bacillar (rod-shaped) to bifusiform (double-spindle-shaped) conidia" some construction/comma issues here
  • This is my personal taste, but as a reader I would prefer if all the lichen-jargon were explained within this description section. I understand I can click the links to find out what each term means, but that leads to an unpleasant and jarring reading experience. A few words that give me a rough understanding of what the hell "paraplectenchymatous" means would be most welcome
  • I hear ya! Check if the read is smoother now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything "7-chlorocatenarin" could link to?
  • I red-linked to the parent compound catenarin and will bluelink it before this FAC is over. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several more terms (like Sedifolia-gray) that have broken links to the glossary. It may be an issue throughout the article, and is one more reason it is good to have brief explanations of in-line text
  • Interestingly, these lichengloss links with a hyphen don't work for me either, and I have no idea why not; the anchors on the glossary page seem to be constructed correctly ... will investigate. For now added a couple more words to give these compounds more context. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessary at all, but a table for the list of genera may improve readability and reduce white space
  • I'm reluctant to use something other than the standard formatting we've sort of establish at WP:Lichen, but maybe I'll play around in a sandbox and see how it looks? Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any species prey upon Teloschistaceae? I know it was mentioned earlier that some of the chemicals deter herbivory; I'd be interested to know if there are herbivores that are not deterred by that, or if there are species that lack pigments and are consumed more readily.
  • For lichens, this kind of information is generally dealt with in genus and species articles, but since you asked, I was able to pull some tidbits of info applicable to the entire family and made a "Species interactions" subsection for it to reside. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the species on the Red Lists threatened? Are there any broad threats to lichens in the family?
  • I've added some more interesting details from the IUCN sources. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now, thank you for the excellent article; it is a wonderful overview! Fritzmann (message me) 15:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for a most helpful review! I appreciate the valuable feedback and am happy to see the article improve as a result. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some great changes there, I'm glad I was able to help and am happy to support on prose and content! Fritzmann (message me) 11:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

Great to see this here. I spotted the type species myself just two months ago while hiking.

  • reaction of the ascus tip's external layer to iodine – the ascus being the spore-producing structure. – Reads awkward. Maybe "reaction of the ascus, the spore-producing structure, to iodine"? In addition of being less awkward, this is now more simplified, but I would recommend such simplification at least for the lead.
  • up to more than 1000 – we can't have "more than" and "up to" at the same time, this is contradictory.
  • were largely ignored by later contemporaries, – contradictory as well: are they contemporaries, or did they live later?
  • I think that terms in figure captions should be linked.
  • Also, terms that were already linked in the lead should be linked (and preferably explained) in the main body again (according to WP:MOS).
  • ascospores – link terms always at first mention
  • The link "amyloid" to the glossary is unsatisfactory, as the glossary entry does not make sense to me. Why not link to the main article?
  • presence of a strongly amyloid cap-like zone at the tip of the ascus – We need to do more to get the general reader on board, I think. Maybe replace "amyloid" with an explanation, or add such explanation in a bracket?
  • verified the presence of a special ascus type featuring an amyloid outer layer without visible apical structures, and with an irregular dehiscence; she named this the Teloschistes-type – my perspective here is that of a lay person. I honestly think that I am unable to learn much from this sentence. In this context (it is the history section!), it seems to be way too much detail. And even when I follow the links, I still can't really understand the essence, because for this it is not detailed enough. E.g., "irregular dehiscence", irregular in what way? The article dehiscence does not explain what "irregular" means in this context, too. Maybe it would be possible to reduce the detail overall, and focus on getting the main points across?
  • until the molecular era – I was not entirely sure what the molecular era is here. Link to molecular phylogenetics, if this hits your point?
  • including 8 genera, 48 new species – why are only the species "new", but not the genera?
  • Technically some of the genera were "resurrected", i.e. circumscribed a long time ago, forgotten, and then revived due to molecular work that reveals that the name of the old genus is the best placement. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • identifying it as an "artifactual taxon" with "chimeric" data origins – can we translate this to common language? Maybe it could simply be deleted.
  • A subsequent review revealed it to be – "subsequent" to what? This is already the second sentence about a paper that is "subsequent" to the former.
  • Although evidence undermines the phylogenetic legitimacy of these two subfamilies, Kondratyuk's group persists in recognizing them, attributing nine genera to Brownlielloideae and two to Ikaerioideae.[36] – Are we too close to WP:Synth here? This is a sentence that calls for a secondary source, but you only cite the group that you are criticizing, so it reads like original criticism published in Wikipedia, which should not be.
  • used by Ulf Arup and colleagues in their 2013 publication, – I personally consider this excessive detail
  • diverse secondary chemistry – what does that mean?
  • This subfamily was first informally proposed (without a valid diagnosis) – But this seems to apply to the other subfamilies as well, yet you only mention it in this one. Why?
  • Caloplacoideae contains mostly crustose species, and collectively has a wide distribution – what does the "collectively" add here? If you want to refer to the individual species, you should write "which collectively have", but that seems just redundant to me.
  • The widespread application of molecular techniques to the Teloschistaceae has illuminated the variability of many morphological and anatomical characters, demonstrating their unreliability as evolutionary markers.[51] With the advancements in molecular techniques, differentiation of species once considered phenotypically indistinguishable became clearer, as evidenced by the semi-cryptic species group containing the closely named Caloplaca micromarina, C. micromontana, and C. microstepposa.[52] – I think this has similar problems to those I mentioned above:
    • What's the difference between morphological and anatomical characters? Aren't these synonyms?
    • If characters are "variable" in the family (i.e., different from species to species), that does not necessarily mean that they do not carry phylogenetic signal. So I am not sure what you mean.
    • "as evidenced by" – but you do not provide any evidence, you just list three species. This does not help, you could just remove this part.
  • Despite the Teloschistaceae's prominence in GenBank with over 6400 DNA sequences, early molecular studies often faced limitations due to insufficient sampling of representative species. – the relationship in time is not clear. Did the early studies had access to those 644 DNA sequences? If those sequences were added much later, the "despite" seems wrong because that would be irrelevant to those early studies.
  • Historically, genera within Teloschistaceae were distinguished based on attributes like growth form, cortical layer nature, rhizine presence, or spore type. – That sentence would make sense at the beginning of the section.
  • these taxonomic distinctions such as those – "these" bits "such as those"
  • especially given the reliance on previously unreliable characters – So they are no longer unreliable? If they are now reliable, why does this "emphazise" the need for molecular studies?
  • You have a lot of "emphazise", "highlighting", "revealed", "elucidated", "illuminated". Some of these sound like MOS:PEACOCK to me.
  • Given the myriad taxonomic changes – "many", not "myriad". No colloquial speech.
  • In general, I think the writing still needs a lot of work, it is not quite there yet. I recommend to try to
    • reduce the amount of detail that is not precisely to the point/not needed to understand the key points;
    • formulate more concisely without fluff;
    • translate complicated sentences into plain language text that is easier to understand;
    • and add more context information that the reader might need to understand the main points.

Hope this helps so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Corrections are looking good! I continue with the remainder of the article below:
  • anthraquinone – terms should be linked at first mention in the main text (independently from the lead).
  • from the thin, encrusting (crustose) to leaf-like (foliose), or even bushy (fruticose) formations. – "the" is too much; I would maybe also remove the comma behind (foliose).
  • apotheciate – wikilink should be extended to the whole word (using the pipe: |).
  • Their reproductive structures, or ascomata, are usually brightly coloured. – are you now talking about the green algae or the fungi? This is not clear.
  • In most species, apotheciate ascomata have a lecanorine form, in which the apothecial disc is surrounded by a pale rim of tissue known as a thalline margin. Fewer Teloschistaceae species have biatorine or lecideine forms, in which the apothecial disc lacks a thalline margin.[53][1] Reproductive propagules, such as isidia and soredia, can be found in select species. – Any chance to make this more accessible? Maybe some technical terms can be avoided, and others explained?
  • I have clarified what "apotheciate" means, but I think the explanatory text following the commas adequately explain the respective technical terms. Perhaps it might be a good idea to add a small image of an apothecia to make it easier for the reader to envision the "disc" and "margin" that is referred to? I'll see what I can find. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've added an image that I hope will help the reader better understand the terms apothecia, lecanorine, and thalline margins. Esculenta (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • internal apical apparatus – what is that?
  • J+ layer – maybe this technical term can be avoided by replacing it with your explanation that you provided in the bracket?
  • Would prefer to keep this technical term, as it appears in several of the formal descriptions of the family; I've rearranged the text so the explanation is closer and no longer parenthetical. Esculenta (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The translucent (hyaline) ascospores – Not sure if it makes sense to provide technical terms in a bracket (it only makes sense the other way around). Maybe remove the "hyaline" and just wikilink the word "translucent" accordingly?
  • Despite the polarilocular nature of ascospores suggesting Teloschistaceae lineage, these spores are often not overtly distinctive. – I do not really understand this sentence, neither do I understand what it adds that is not stated by the sentence that follows.
  • pycnidia-type conidiomata, producing clear conidia – again, give the reader some idea what this means?
  • loosely paraplectenchymatous structure – again, impossible to understand the sentence without understanding this term; I suggest to add an inline explanation if possible.
  • Again here, the explanation ("the constituent fungal hyphae are oriented in various directions") follows the comma. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of your comments I've responded to; otherwise I've considered and implemented all of your suggestions to clarify and polish the prose. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I see that some terms are already explained, but here it was not clear to me that these are explanations (you cannot know that if you do not understand what it means). I suggest to use the same format for explanations throughout the article (e.g., use "meaning that", or put them in brackets, as you do elsewhere in the article) to mark them clearly as explanations rather than additional information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research on Teloschistaceae photobionts has shown that all studied foliose (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and fruticose (Teloschistes) types were affiliated with specific Trebouxia clades. This indicates a degree of specificity at the genus level, where only certain subclades of the Trebouxia clade are seen as suitable partners. This specificity, however, can vary based on the habitat; in extreme climates, lichens might be associated with a broader range of photobionts. – I had to read this several times, I think clarity could be improved. With "types", you mean genera? Who "sees" the subclades as suitable partners, the researchers? Does that mean it is an opinion rather than a solid observation? And do you mean that particular lichen taxa that live in extreme climates show a broader range of photobionts, or that photobionts within a taxon vary according to habitat?
  • I hope this revision makes it clearer: "Studies of photobionts in the Teloschistaceae, including foliose genera (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and a fruticose genus (Teloschistes), reveal a consistent association with specific Trebouxia clades. This finding suggests a genus-level specificity, with only select Trebouxia subclades forming symbiotic relationships. However, this specificity is not absolute and may vary with habitat: lichens in extreme climates have been observed to associate with a broader range of photobionts." Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main group of lichen products – What does "main" mean here? Does this refer to the quantity of the produced substance?
  • Main, as in predominant; it's now "The predominant chemical compounds found in the Teloschistaceae are chemical pigments known as anthraquinones." Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolutionary innovations in secondary metabolite production allowed the family to broaden its geographical range and transition from shaded, plant-based habitats to sun-exposed, arid environments. The production of protective chemicals is thought to be a direct contributor to the evolutionary success of the familial lineage – The second sentence kind of repeats what the first sentence was saying. You also use both "secondary metabolite" and "protective chemical", which seems to refer to the same thing here (the anthraquinones). This can be confusing, as it may be not evident that "protective chemical" refers to the substances previously mentioned.
  • Reworded to trim the repetition and more clearly linked the term "secondary metabolites" with "anthraquinones," clarifying that they are the protective chemicals in question. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • recovered at a looted Late Holocene aboriginal cairn burial site in South America. – Can we be more specific than "South America"?
  • Caloplaca (in the broad sense) – not even the article on Caloplaca gives a hint what this "broad sense" could be. Can this be simplified?
  • Collectively, the family has a cosmopolitan distribution, – replace with "worldwide distribution" to avoid an unnecessary technical term?
  • In general, the family is moderately to strongly nitrophilous. This suggests a preference of many of its species for habitats that are rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate. – Why not simply "Many species of the family are moderately to strongly nitrophilous, meaning that they prefer habitats rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate"? You are using "suggests", but actually what follows is not a scientific interpretation but an explanation of the term "nitrophilous"?
  • Sun-adapted lichens, such as the Teloschistaceae, have an enhanced ability to upregulate the levels at which they fix carbon from the atmosphere and absorb excess nitrogen. – I don't really understand; what has carbon fixation to do with nitrogen absorption?
  • There are several Teloschistaceae genera that contain lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) species. These originate from subfamily Caloplacoideae: Caloplaca (26 spp.), Gyalolechia (1 sp.), Variospora (1 sp.); from subfamily Teloschistoideae: Catenarina (1 sp.), Sirenophila 1; and from subfamily Xanthorioideae: Flavoplaca (4 spp.), Pachypeltis (1 sp.), and Shackletonia (3 spp.). – I am not sure why it is important to list the genera that contain lichen-dwelling species. You are not doing this for, say, lichen that grow on soil. Are these lichen-dwelling species especially relevant?
  • I've made it more explicit in the lead and in the article that these 40-odd members of the family are fungi (i.e., not lichenised) and are therefore somewhat unusual in a family of predominantly lichenised members (and hence deserve to be highlighted). Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, there is a relatively low diversity of crustose Teloschistaceae in Central Europe. – "Conversely" does not make sense to me here. It would make sense if you would state they are rare in the tropics (as opposed to the polar regions).
  • occur in primarily in sunlit locations – excessive "in"
  • Teloschistaceae species are known to be host to many lichenicolous fungi, with certain fungi like Cercidospora caudata and Stigmidium cerinae displaying a broad range of hosts within this family. Most of these parasitic fungi show a preference for specific Teloschistaceae species or genus. –
  • Is this the same as the lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) lichen discussed earlier, but this time other species growing on Teloschistaceae rather than wise versa? If so, it could have been mentioned earlier that these are parasitic and not sympatric.
  • The first sentence is a bit awkward, especially the use of "displaying". Do they "display" the hosts? Maybe simply "have" is a better choice.
  • Would it be better to combine the "displaying a broad range of hosts within this family" with the second sentence instead, which is about the same topic?
  • Good points! I've rewritten these bits for clarity. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • late Cretaceous period, – "Late Cretaceous period" (upper case "L")
  • These parasitic fungi seem to be interesting, but as a non-expert, I wonder if these are microscopic, or can be observed by the naked eye? If the latter, is there a photograph that can be shown?
  • Mostly the latter; there might be an image I can use, I'll get back to you about this. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to this and JM's comments below, I've added an image of the parasitic Tremella fungus to show its gall-inducing nature. Esculenta (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caloplaca pseudopoliotera and C. cupulifera are two crustose species implicated in the slow degradation of the Konark Sun Temple in India. – "Involved" instead of "implicated"? Or even "responsible"?
  • Economic significance – This section is not really about economic significance, but rather about conservation of cultural objects and buildings (which can have economic significance but I think the point here is rather cultural heritage).
  • I couldn't think of a short subheader for this paragraph, so I left it out (doesn't really seem necessary). Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Europe during the early modern era, it was boiled in milk to alleviate jaundice – a treatment shared with Polycauliona candelaria – and employed for diarrhea, dysentery, stopping bleeding, as a malaria remedy in lieu of quinine, and for treating hepatitis. – What does "a treatment shared with" means here? Are both used in combination to make this medicine?
  • In Traditional Chinese medicine the lichen has been used as an antibacterial. – You use past tense, but are you sure these are not in use anymore?
  • I'm not sure; the source also said "used", so stuck with past tense. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a pollutant tolerance biomonitor? If the lichen can cope with high levels of pollution, it cannot monitor the presence of these pollutants, or can it?
  • Hopefully I've explained the authors' reasoning better. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and potential invasive species intrusions. – Do you really mean that invasive species are potentially present, or do you mean that they have a potential impact on the lichen?
  • and the presence of invasive species like goats and cows altering the habitat – really invasive species, or rather livestock?
  • Clarified/explained "invasive species" for both instances. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for a thorough review. I've actioned your comments to which I haven't replied. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Fantastic to see this here. Gone are the days of multiple fungal candidates at FAC simultaneously!

  • I don't personally mind it, but I could see someone saying that the second and third sentences of the lead are a bit specialist for so early in the article.
  • Reorganised so that 2nd & 3rd sentences have more friendly information. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Current" estimates will quickly get out of date; do you have a year for the estimates?
  • Nothing in the lead about uses to humans, cultural significance, etc.
  • I've added a couple of sentences that summarise this. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Mantissa Plantarum II is the same as Mantissa Plantarum Altera? I've created a redirect; if I'm wrong, please tell me!
  • You are correct, and after consulting with the source to be sure, I changed this article to link to the latter title. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "perforation" jargon?
  • Depends if one knows what "perforate" means or not! It's now a "small hole". 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "later subsequent researchers" Redundancy
  • There's a bit of inconsistency in the use of the Oxford comma. It's fine to use it or not use it, but aim to be consistent.
  • " in his popular Outline of the Ascomycota series" Popular in what way? Is that needed?
  • "Teloschistineae" We don't italicise suborders; or were you meaning to italicise it as a word, rather than as a suborder?
  • "Letrouitineae (containing Brigantiaeaceae and Letrouitiaceae) and its sister clade, Teloschistineae (containing Teloschistaceae and Megalosporaceae)" Are any of these worth linking? Or would they just be properly included within the article on Teloschistales? (If so, might be worth creating redirects and linking anyway.)
  • I made redirects for Letrouitineae and Teloschistineae, but don't think this article needs to link them (they're explained in text, and the actual links aren't useful yet). Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Molecular phylogenetics has revolutionised our understanding of the Teloschistaceae" Slightly rhetorical; the use of the first person isn't very Wikipedia!
  • "researchers like Ester Gaya and colleagues in 2012 began" A bit vague/unclear. Maybe you could do something like "researchers (including Ester Gaya and colleagues, publishing in 2012) began". But that's not very elegant either. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at?
  • "Moreover, molecular evidence has helped to map the family's relationship within the class Lecanoromycetes. A 2018 study, for instance, identified the Megalosporaceae as the Teloschistaceae's closest relative.[52]" This feels like editorialising/synthesis. You're making a broad claim but only citing one primary study; or am I misunderstanding?
  • I don't think it's a particularly broad (or surprising) claim. We've suspected for a long time that the Teloschistaceae is part of the class Lecanoromycetes. Molecular phylogenetics is helping us to better understand the specific relationships of this family within the class. Molecular support for Megalosporaceae being the closest relative to Teloschistaceae pretty much conclusively demonstrates what had been long suspected. No dissenting voices (regarding this particular relationshp) have been in the literature published since then. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response to these discoveries, experts like Robert Lücking recommend extensive analysis" Ditto two above points.
  • " are important for" Again, editorialising/non-neutral?
  • Have reworded these parts, please check to see if you think the editorialising is gone. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dash use inconsistent. Compare (eg) para one of description to para 2 of molecular phylogenetics to para 2 of description -- three different approaches! See WP:DASH.
  • You mention in the lead that it's not always Trebouxia; but this doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the article.
  • I've gone through the literature again to confirm, and simplified a longer story. Basically, some studies found Asterochloris (a similar green algal genus) to also associate with Teloschistaceae. However, these findings have not been subsequently confirmed, and to make things more complicated, Asterochloris was not validly published by its author, although some still continue to use the invalid species names, while others keep them in genus Trebouxia. But this doesn't need to be explained in this article. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some inconsistency on -ise vs ize. Either acceptable in British English, but be consistent.

Stopping there for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments so far; I've addressed the points I haven't specifically responded to. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{lichengloss|Sedifolia-grey}} isn't linking where you want it to, because of gray/grey. Is there a way to make a 'redirect'?
  • "bark-dwelling habitats" They didn't have bark-dwelling habitats; they had bark habitats or bark-dwelling habits. (Maybe there are more elegant phrases you could use.)
  • "This section presents a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae, based largely on a 2021 fungal classification review and new reports published since then.[70] Each genus is paired with its taxonomic authority, denoting the first describers using standardised author abbreviations, the publication year, and the number of species." I worry this may be a self reference, which we should avoid -- but I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the guideline.
  • Not sure what to do with this, but I'm quite open to tweaking the wording to address your concern. This is a sort of standard format I've been using to introduce genera and/or species lists in family/genus articles, so I'd appreciate any specific ideas you might have for fixing this (and would use these fixes in other articles to avoid this in the future). Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporary estimates of the number" Again; this will quickly become outdated. You start the section with a reference to 2001; there are many adults alive who were born after that!
  • "Genera are organised here by subfamily:" Another self-reference, perhaps
  • "during the recent restructuring of the family" Another apt-to-become-dated claim; you could easily avoid this by referring to the specific restructuring.
  • "Andina Wilk, Pabijan & Lücking (2021) has been replaced with Wilketalia.[135]" I know this is slightly beyond the scope of this review, but if that's right, our article at Andina citrinoides, which you're linking to, needs updating!
  • You are quite correct; I'll try to make this update before the FAC finishes. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also well beyond the scope of this review, but it's a shame we don't have an article on bipolar species!
  • "in the previous decade" Again, this will quickly become outdated
  • I thought a picture of Tremella caloplacae might be an interesting addition; this article is freely licensed, meaning you could (if you wanted to -- no pressure) add this image.
  • That's great – I hadn't originally noticed it was free. Have added the image now. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article's a real achievement. I wish I knew a bit more about lichens than I do, so I really enjoyed reading it. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I haven't had a chance to have a second read-through, so I'm afraid I can't support right now; but I certainly don't oppose, and think this is a very praiseworthy article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images good. No copyright problems. Some are visually stunning. I have 'reviewed' the licenses of a couple of the images taken from Mushroom Observer, which should futureproof them in the unlikely event that they're taken down from the website for some reason. File:Caloplaca aurantia (Pers.) Hellb..jpg has no English language description, and the description on File:Athallia holocarpa Droker.jpg is odd. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your comments and suggestions (those uncommented by me above I've actioned). Thanks for reviewing, and for the extra image validation. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the condition that SchroCat's concerns are resolved. I agree with SC about your use of the Oxford comma. (I note you also have one colonizing, though you otherwise use -ise.) I also agree with SchroCat about your self-references in phrases like 'this section'. But I've just had another quick look through the article, and I think it's fantastic. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review spot-check upon request. Does the Acta Botanica Hungarica have issue numbers? I see that not all authors are linked, e.g Pier Luigi Nimis, Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo, Alexander Zahlbruckner, Sergey Kondratyuk isn't, but I didn't investigate closely who needs linking and who not - it's mostly a minor consistency issue. I see a few ancient sources, but the kind of information sourced to them doesn't seem likely to change over time. I notice that some sources are split by pagenumbers and others have lengthy page ranges given for the same ref, which is inconsistent. I've filed a report about 10.1017/S0269-915X(02)00206-9 being a broken DOI. It looks like otherwise most references are consistently formatted and nothing jumps out as unreliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta, any response to Jo-Jo's source review? FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acta Botanica Hungarica does have issue #'s, but they were all already in the article before the source review. I added more authorlinks, so everyone that has an article should be linked at least once in the citations. Broad page ranges usually means that the cited information is passim in the source, but I'm happy to narrow down page ranges if it is deemed necessary. I filed a report about the broken DOI at least 3 months ago. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to narrow down page ranges, some of them are quite large. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I split a few sources into sfn's to cite specific page #'s, added pointers to some specific pages in broader ranges, added an online archive link for one citation so reader can confirm fact with "find", and added "passim" to some sfn's that had blank page parameters. I think the remaining long page ranges don't need specific page numbers, because more or less the entirety of the cited source supports the stated fact. Esculenta (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I would use the entire page range rather than passim, myself. Clearer for non-Latin anoraks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with risking that the small fraction of a percent of readers who actually check any of the 3 citations where passim is used will either be familiar with it already, or have to experience a new word. I could find other examples of FAs where it is used, if precedent counts. Thanks for the source review! Esculenta (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think other FAs using passim instead of full page ranges probably means they need to have the passim replaced with a page range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best practice, which is what is usually followed at FAC, is to provide clarity by using the actual page ranges. And as with all of Wikipedia, precedent is rarely a useful guide. If it is, I think that the precedent of your previous FA is a good one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

Looks pretty good. Looking over now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking.
  • Collectively, the family has a worldwide distribution,... - "collectively" is redundant here (in both places)

Ok, I am a neophyte on lichens - but I can't see any glaring errors..and the prose looks to have struck as best a balance as possible between accessibility and accuracy. So count this as a cautious support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sergey Kondratyuk and his colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)
Drive by comment: That is the reader-friendly version of "et al." ("and others"), replacing the list of co-authors of a paper (i.e., "Main author et al." -> "Main author and colleagues"). "And colleagues" is pretty standard and I used it in all my Wikipedia articles, I can't think about how to make this clearer without adding bloat. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may have, but I would have opposed if I had reviewed and seen it, and I do not consider it "standard". It may be used in scientific papers, but this is an encyclopaedia and there isn't a problem in showing the names on first mention, even if only in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is demonstrably standard in science articles in Wikipedia. Pick any of our dinosaur FAs, for example. You can almost always get the full list of authors when clicking on the inline reference at the end of the sentence. I never have seen an article that provides all those co-author names in-text (these can add-up very quickly), and I probably would oppose an article that does so, because it adds bloat that is barely useful for anybody (and footnotes would just be redundant to the ref-list, where this information is provided anyways). Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You think people should only get details by clicking on the inline reference? No. That's not right at all and it's a method that in my mind does readers a disservice.
Anyway, my comments are to the nominator: I'll let them answer and then decide whether to support, oppose or step away. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Jens explains, its a prose conversion of "et al." and is used on many science-related FACs and GAs. I did replace the first instance of "Arup and colleagues" with the spelled out colleague names, as their 2013 phylogenetics paper was so fundamental to the current structure of the family it makes sense to credit them the first time they're mentioned. I don't think it's needed for the other instances. Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to German lichenologist Robert Lücking": is his nationality of importance? Removing it would probably improve readability and not harm a reader's understanding of the topic (much like you do with "the mycologist Friedrich Wilhelm Zopf and the chemist Oswald Hesse")
  • Ok, removed this and one other instance. Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "Xanthodactylon, Xanthopeltis and Xanthoria" but "yellow, orange, and red": probably best to take a spin through to ensure you are consistent in either using or not using the serial comma
  • Fixed to serial comma. I thought I had caught them all with my last spin through, but apparently not! Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arup and colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)
  • "This section presents": I think that somewhere in the MOS is something that says we don't use language similar to this and it’s certainly something that I've not seen in any successful FAs. The phrasing of this one sentence is enough for me not to support the article as it stands. What is wrong with something along the lines of "A 2021 fungal classification review, and subsequent published studies, produced a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae"?
  • I'm happy to change the wording to comply with WP:SELF, but haven't come up with a fully satisfying alternative. Unfortunately, your suggested phrasing seems a bit awkward (it seems to imply that the review and following studies produced the compilation, but I produced the compilation using these sources ... am I overthinking this?) Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, although I now have a slight concern that there may be OR involved in the compilation (based only on your phrasing here). I suspect it’s not really OR, but can you confirm and clarify please?
    Can you also clarify the source for this list? The text says there are “117 genera and 805 species” which does not tally with what is shown.
    Regardless of either of those points, the opening paragraph needs to be rewritten to avoid breaching SELF. I’ll finish the rest of the review later today. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I removed the first sentence (which seemed to be the major SELF violation) and shuffled some bits around. To clarify how this list of genera was made, I used 2021 Wijayawardene et al. ("Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa – 2021") as a starting point, as it is the most recent compilation of fungal taxa available. From there I added new genera that have been published since that time, and included all of the genera that Wijayawardene et al. place in synonymy, with explanatory footnotes about who thinks what genera should be included or not. The text says "Species Fungorum (in the Catalogue of Life), accepts 117 genera and 805 species", which is true. This does not mean to imply that the entirety of the list comes from that source. The taxonomic situation is fluid, and different authorities have different opinions on what genera should exist, so I've tried to list them all and explain where the sources disagree. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the start of Habitat. More to follow shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Just two points from the remainder:[reply]

  • Diarrhea - > diarrhoea (x2)
  • Is there a reason why FNs 2 and 3 are unsupported?

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes you've made and the work you've done on this overall. I'm not going to be able to support this, but I don't think I can oppose it either. The reasons for my sitting on the fence are as follows:

  • I am personally uncomfortable with the "X and his colleagues" format. I am aware this is common in academic papers, but this is an encyclopaedia to be read by the general public. Calls to "it is used elsewhere on WP" don't cut it for me I'm afraid. Although at FA we try to mimic some aspects of academic publishing, we are an encyclopaedia with a global general readership and I don't think this helps them.
  • Actually, the "X et al." format is common in scientific academic publishing, whereas the "and colleagues" is the "translation" that Wikipedia seems to have taken up. I understand your point (but don't necessarily agree). Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m well aware of the original (and it’s not just scientific, but other disciplines too) and it’s the default on WP in the references for multiple authors when using sfn, but I disagree with its use in the body in a general encyclopaedia. Not everyone who reads this will be familiar with the academic norm and will be confused. -SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is, I think, too densely technical in places. That's not necessarily the fault of the writer(s), but I think overall it runs too close to WP:OVERTECH for me to be happy enough to support. There are areas where the general reader (which includes me!) will just be lost in the terminology. Ditto my comment above on 'global general readership'.
  • I accept that the type of articles I work on are technical by nature, but have tried to follow the principles outlined at WP:TECHNICAL. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question of the genus list (a list of "117 genera and 805 species" shows 124 genera), which makes me a bit uncomfortable.
  • (Added later): I’m also uncomfortable with the very wide page ranges in the refs: pp. 1–82, 147–203, 132–168, etc. (added at SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

There is nothing I am going to oppose on, but I just don't think I can support either. – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for giving it a read and offering your suggestions for improvement. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Schro, I realise you're not committing to support or oppose, but can I just check you have nothing further to add, given it appears that Esculenta has done some work on the article since your last comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I think I’ll stay where I am on the !vote side of things. Cheers for the ping. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Teloschistaceae/archive1&oldid=1192165832"