Jump to content

Talk:Hydropunctaria amphibia/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • "more or less thick, crust-like" You don't mention these things in the body.
  • The lead's a bit short; you could mention its original description in Verrucaria and potential use as a bio-indicator too.
  • "Passage translated by GPT-4." Do we really need to mention this? Isn't it similar to using a web translation tool like Google Translate? Especially for Latin, I can't imagine it being unreliable enough to need a disclaimer.
  • I was asked to do this in a recent GAN, and thought it was a good idea. I think it's just a form of WP:verifiability, and can't see any downsides to giving this information to the reader, who could then plug the text into their own preferred translation tool to compare results. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the Hydropunctaria" to "to Hydropunctaria"?
  • "segregate genus" Link.
  • "very locally developed" Unclear to a non-specialist.
  • Maybe mention "micrometre (μm)" for at least the first mention; it's not a very well-known unit for lay readers.
  • "A pseudocortex," to "The pseudocortex,"?
  • "Perithecia, the...small pit" Run-on sentence, needs to be split for better readability.
  • "key differences lies in the structure of the perithecium" to "key differences is the structure of the perithecium"?
  • "regularly, but infrequently" Comma isn't necessary.
  • "species Melarhaphe neritoides, Echinolittorina punctata." to "species Melarhaphe neritoides and Echinolittorina punctata."
  • "the Mediterranean, and also" Comma isn't necessary.
  • "fringe–defined as 0.3–0.8 m (1 ft 0 in – 2 ft 7 in) above the Fucus-barnacle zone–most commonly on limestone" Bit hard to read, maybe better as "fringe (defined as 0.3–0.8 m (1 ft 0 in – 2 ft 7 in) above the Fucus-barnacle zone), most commonly on limestone"
  • Images are fine.
  • I checked Scholar and the article seems to cover nearly all the literature available on the species.
  • The refs are all reliable and formatted correctly.
  • Excellent work on this, just some comments on the prose from me. I'll do some spot-checks later. AryKun (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checks: No issues found.
    • "Synonymy. Current Name: Hydropunctaria amphibia (Clemente) Cl. Roux, in Roux, Masson, Bricaud, Coste & Poumarat, Bull. Soc. linn. Provence, num. spéc. 14: 108 (2011)". Species Fungorum.
    • Roux, C.; Masson, D.; Bricaud, O.; Coste, C.; Poumarat, S. (2011). "Flore et végétation des lichens et champignons lichénicoles de quatre réserves naturelles des Pyrénées-Orientales (France)" (PDF). Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Provence (in French).
    • Taylor, Ronald M. (1982). Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States. Lichens (Ascomycetes) of the Intertidal Region (Report). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular. Vol. 446. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service.
    • Brodo, Irwin (1995). "Lichens and lichenicolous fungi of the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada. 1. Introduction and new records for B.C., Canada and North America". Mycotaxon.
  • I'll pass right now, but would recommend adding a translated title for the French journal article and removing any ResearchGate links for possible copyvio concerns.
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
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hydropunctaria_amphibia/GA1&oldid=1212169132"