Talk:Roccellaceae/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 21:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I will review this soonish. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• circumscribed by the French botanist François Fulgis Chevallier in 1826. – I never saw "circumscribed" used in this context for other high-level taxon articles. Is this something specific for lichen or botany? Not sure if "erected" would be better, since he was not the only one to circumscribe the taxon?
• Roccellaceae species typically have apotheciate or lirellate ascomata – Can we make the lead more accessible to the lay reader? Ascomata is not even linked. Why not simply "fruiting bodies"? Suggest to add an explanatory gloss.
• Cosmopolitan -> "worldwide", at least in the lead? It really helps readers if you use plain-language words where they are available.
• symbiotic -> link
• The Chevallier quote contains many terms but no wikilinks?
• The genus name Roccella, assigned by the Swiss botanist Augustin Pyramus de Candolle in 1805 – already mentioned earlier
• meaning a type of lichen – wondering if this can be more specific; "type of lichen that grows on rocks" maybe, if that's the case?
• phylogenetic study – link in body at first mention (it is linked later)
• basal nodes – you link "basal", but "nodes" needs linking or explanation too. Maybe add a gloss.
• the sister pair Dirina-Roccella; Chiodecton natalense-Lecanactis – so this means that "Chiodecton natalense-Lecanactis" is not a sister pair? And why do you give the species name here instead of just the genus name, is it to indicate that the genus is monotypic?
• 'Roccellaceae typically has cylindrical asci, whereas Arthoniaceae have – has or have? Should be consistent here.
• The reduction of the proper exciple, which is a protective layer around the hymenium, – move this explanation to where the term is first mentioned?
• ascospores, hymenium, reversal, terminal taxa, hypothecia, polyphyletic, carbonaceous excipulum, iodine, clades – all of these might need a wikilink (some might already be linked but I forgot about it while reading, but please check).
• These morphological traits, alongside molecular evidence, enhance the understanding of the family's evolution and help in distinguishing Roccellaceae from other families within Arthoniales. – This was kind of mentioned already, not sure what adds here, I suggest to remove it.
• Similarly, the genera Dichosporidium and Mazosia, once considered part of Roccellaceae, are now recognised as belonging to this separate clade. – It makes little sense to me to explicitly mention these genera here since the previous sentence only listed "some" genera as examples anyways.
• based on synapomorphies such as cortex plectenchyma and coastal habitat. – Can habitat really qualify as a "synapomorphy" (which, I thought, is always related to morphology)?
• also suggested multiple evolutions – Multiple "origins"?
• These initial studies provided important insights into the family's evolutionary history, revealing – Suggest to cut "provided important insights into the family's evolutionary history", I think it is unnecessary.
• You vey often use the word "significant", which can be WP:peacock. If something is not significant, I wouldn't expect it to be mentioned in this general article.
• challenging some traditional classifications based solely on morphological characteristics. – Somwhow repetitive, as you already have "The molecular data have also led to significant taxonomic revisions within the family" in the same paragraph.
• fruticose (shrub-like) growth – great explanatory gloss, but why so late in the article? I would add that to the lead, too.
• While many Roccellaceae have apotheciate (disc-like) or lirelliform (elongated) ascomata, some genera, such as Chiodecton, have evolved perithecioid ascomata aggregated into stroma-like structures. – Why not have a gloss for "perithecioid" too?
• Image caption: "Phacographa protoparmeliae (blackened areas), shown here parasitising the thallus of Protoparmelia badia, is a member of the entirely lichenicolous genus Phacographa" – It does not become clear here that this is not a member of the family; also explain "lichenicolous" or, better, replace with "that exclusively grows on lichen".
• Enterographa has the highest diversity of lichenicolous fungi in the family, with nine obligately lichenicolous species and one facultatively or doubtfully lichenicolous species out of its 55 total species. – Now I'm not sure if these lichenicolous species are members of the genus Enterographa, or if the latter is only the host?
• I suggest to red-link the species mentioned under "conservation" to encourage the creation of respective articles.
• That's all from me! All GA criteria are generally met, and the above comments are mostly nitpicks for accessibility and clarity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)