Talk:Solorina crocea/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Happy to offer a review.

• What does "cortex" mean in this context? It strikes me as undefined jargon.

• Now linked and glossed. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• "a single transverse septum" is also a little jargon-y.

• Septum now linked. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• " In S. crocoides, the spores" Do you mean S. crocea? If not, why are you telling us about a different species?

• My error is now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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.

• Would switching the tag to PD-US-expired (rather than PD-US) fix this? Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cole died in 1900 (see here and the work was published in 1884, so it's in the public domain in the UK too (that's life + 70 years for last surviving author/editor). MeegsC (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• And this suggests Cole himself was the "illustrator". MeegsC (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Excellent. I have updated the image page to reflect this. It's definitely PD in both the UK and the US, and now has the appropriate tags demonstrating this. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Your edits are fine, thanks. Appreciate the review! Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)