Talk:Xylopsora canopeorum/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• "formally described as new to science" Sounds weird, you describe something as a species, you don't describe it as new to science. ig sp. nov. could be interpreted that way, but still sounds weird.

• This is a standard construction. To be sure, I searched Google Scholar for "described as new to science", and there appear to be more than 6000 instances of this exact phrase in the literature. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• You don't describe its appearance or distribution/habitat in the lead.

• Corrected this oversight. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "thamnolic and friesiic acids" to "thamnolic and friesiic acid"

• The use of the plural "acids" is appropriate because the sentence refers to two distinct types of acid. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "due to habitat specialization" to "due to its habitat specialization"?

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "severe fragmentation from historic logging" to "severe fragmentation of its range from historic logging"?

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "canopy access" to "accessing the canopy"; also would make more sense if the fact that it grows in the canopy was mentioned earlier.

• Done. (canopy was already mentioned in 2nd sentence of lead). Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Link lichenologists.

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "by the second author" Just say Bendiksby instead.

• Ok. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• California doesn't need a link.

• Unlinked the second one. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "i.e., plant-dwelling" You don't use i.e. for any of the other glosses.

• Trimmed. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "species name" would refer to the binomial, canopeorum specifically is the specific epithet.

• Oops - fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "X. caradocensis" Something weird going on with the italics here.

• Found issue and fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• This entire para has too many details without explaining the relevance of the methods and only seems to mention them because the abstract does.

• Valid point. I added another sentence to hopefully clarify why all of these inference methods were necessary for this analysis (i.e., to overcome inherent difficulties in aligning sequences of differing lengths). Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "cut, blending in color with the rest of the upper surface" to "cut and are the same color as the rest of the upper surface"?

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "changing color in the presence of para-phenylenediamine (PD) and potassium hydroxide (K)" Probably should mention that the color change is yellow.

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• First para in similar sp. isn't cited.

• Added cite. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "indicating a shared preference for the biodiverse surfaces offered by the ancient trees of these old-growth forests." Can't find where this is supported by the source.

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• "providing a unique ecosystem for this lichen species" Can't see where the source says this either.

• Trimmed. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Daniel, Lewis (January 6, 2024). "Coast Redwood Trees Are Enduring, Adaptable Marvels In A Warming World". Discover Magazine.
  • Source misquotes the study; the study talks about 137 sp. documented and then cites two 2007 and 2008 papers, while all of the type series Xylopsora canopeorum specimens were collected in 2015. This is why I don't like using generalist sources for scientific articles, the claim and ref should be removed.

• Excised the crappy generalist source and instead mentioned the 2007 and 2008 papers directly as relevant supplementary info in the conservation section. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spot-checked the IUCN ref and the journal article describing the sp.
• Photos are fine. That's all I got.

• AryKun, thanks for another review. I think I've addressed all of your suggestions with this edit (save for a couple replied to above).

• Seems gtg now, will be passing. AryKun (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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