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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back!! I felt bad seeing the list of lichen that's accumulated in the GANs, so I'll grab one. Always a pleasure to review your work. Page is stable and the author is the majority contributor. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing! Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• Taxobox image is missing a caption

• I think it's ok; according to WP:CAP, "If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox." Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image rights are in order
• Some Alt text would be lovely (Optional)

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All other captions are in order.

Sources

• No concerns of reliability.
• Recommend archiving (optional)
• All linked sources manually reviewed. No dead links noted.

Copy-vios

• Random assessments of sources 1, 5, 15, and 20 found one issues.
• The sentence "Pulchrocladia retipora was the first Australian lichen to be described in a scientific publication." is word-for-word to FN 5.

• Argh – sloppy! Have rephrased. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Earwig is clean otherwise.

Prose

• with numerous intricate, netlike perforations bordering on WP:PUFFERY

• I disagree; all of the words used to describe the perforations are accurate, and reflect adjectives used in sources. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New Zealand's North and South Islands link in the lead

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• on board the Bruni d'Entrecasteaux expeditions in 1792. reword to 'on board Bruni d'Entrecasteaux's 1792 expedition'

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• genus Pulchrocladia, created in 2018 awkwardly worded

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This collection was made as part of reword to 'This sample was obtained as part of...'

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• first collected the lichen in 1792, It's unclear if the collection was in 1791 or 1792. I assume the voyage took a few years, but please be more explicit.

• Expedition was 1791–1794, so collection date makes sense now. Esculenta (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There was debate and it is thought to be be more specific, WP:WEASEL

• Cleaned up prose. Esculenta (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite some controversy This is a vague statement

• I've now detailed the 'controversy'. Esculenta (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The conidiomata are terminal on branchlets just say 'end in branchlets'

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Other compounds occurring in lesser quantity... run-on, or close to it.

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• absent in places or appear sparse. unclear meaning

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonetheless, it always remains compacted unclear what the 'it' is

• Clarified. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A separate description describes cushions repetitive wording, specify who's description

• Cleaned this up. Esculenta (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In a discussion of the cover designs of the journal repetitive, awkward wording

• Hmm, I don't see it as either (probably b/c I wrote it), but I have reworded nonetheless. Is it better? Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The development and growth dynamics of the branching pattern of Pulchrocladia retipora has been studied Kind a meaningless sentence. Lead with why it's studied.

• Good point, done. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• later made apparent by the relative angles of the meristem bundles with respect to each other. WP:TECHNICAL

• Simplified. Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As a whole, I fail to see why the Thallus development section should be here and not in the description. This doesn't discuss the research, instead it's just a description of the thallus formation/branching patterns.

• To me it doesn't feel like it belongs in description, as it focuses on changes in development (ontogeny) and not just a description of what it looks like. I could see it being in an independent section, but I thought it would be alright to slip it in as a subsection of research, because relative to other lichens, this species has had more research on its ontogeny owing to its unique morphology. Also, then the paragraph on resynthesis seems to logically follow, which describes some similar details of the in vitro growth of the lichen. Esculenta (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a joy to read, who knew lichens could read so smoothly. Not far off from GA status either, above are my immediate reccomendations. I made a few clarification/grammatical edits of my own, please review when you can. On hold. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your commentary and suggestions! I have made use of most of your recommendations, and explained why I disagreed with a couple others. Esculenta (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks good!!! I rewrote a sentence to make it more concise and made a few grammatical edits, please review when you can. Passing the article at this time. Congrats!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 06:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]