Talk:Cetrelia/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 00:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead is far too short and doesn't adequately cover the article contents. Neither § Conservation nor § Uses are in the lead.
 * At three paragraphs, it is not "far too short" considering the guidance given at WP:LEAD. I added a sentence for each of these sections per your suggestion. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the lead is too technical and uses too much WP:JARGON—thallus, cortex, holdfasts, rhizines, substrate, propagules, medulla. No need to remove them all, but replace what can be and explain more please. Please try to describe the genus with less technical language in the lead, going into technical detail in § Description.
 * Tried removing/replacing most jargon terms. How does it look now? Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Although 19 Cetrelia species have been described, some authorities prefer to consider the morphologically similar taxa as chemotypes of the same species. Molecular phylogenetic analyses suggests that the chemical races are best treated as distinct species. ← It seems like you're taking a position on the science here. Is it really settled?
 * Not trying to take a position, just trying to summarize the conclusion from the 2019 molecular study discussed in the second paragraph of "Phylogeny", but am open to suggestions for alternative wording. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Systematics

 * The taxonomical locations of species in this genus before the work of the Culbersons really belong at the beginning of the history and not the end.
 * Sorry, I don't quite follow what you want here. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Are the two red-linked names really notable enough people to have their own articles? Seems overlinked.
 * I removed one, but the other is most definitely notable and should have his name associated with the concept he introduced. Esculenta (talk)
 * I was trying to say that the sentence The generic name Cetrelia combines Parmelia and Cetraria, the two genera in which most of the species were originally classified., perhaps expanded with more information about the taxonomic classification of the species now considered part of Cetrelia before the existence of Cetrelia, doesn't belong at the bottom of the history section, but at the top, because in chronological terms it's first. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, the Taxonomic history section now leads with the sentence on etymology. Esculenta (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Phylogeny

 * I view the use of the phraseology Recent (2019) WP:DATED/anti-WP:ENDURE and would prefer a version without Recent.
 * Have removed all instances of "recent" or "recently" in the text. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please clean up en dashes (–) in this section and elsewhere. Often you're using them when you want em dashes instead.
 * I added spaces around two endashes that didn't have them. A spaced endash is essentially equivalent to an unspaced emdash in how it is used here. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Description

 * Grammar—I think the sentence with all the chemicals is better written as Other secondary chemicals that have been identified in this genus are: alectoronic, anziaic, collatolic, imbricaric, microphyllinic, olivetoric, perlatolic, and physodic acids. This sentence seems overlinked. Are these chemicals all notable? Could articles even be created about all of them? I can't find much information at all about some of these lichen metabolites, and would struggle to write some of these articles, but maybe you've better sources.
 * Reworded per your suggestion. All of these metabolites are notable. I checked a few and each had hundreds of hits in Google Scholar. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Species

 * This section is a bit confusing because it says there are nineteen species in the genus, but then cites a reliable source, Species Fungorum, as only including five. Again, is the science settled? Listing nineteen definitive species if not seems wrong.
 * 19 species have been formally described in this genus. I mentioned Species Fungorum's opinion on accepted species (and it's only an opinion, albeit an important one) and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I noticed that SF has since added another species to their "accepted" list (this can be seen when searching the SF website, but it hasn't yet been disseminated in an update at the Catalog of Life site, used as the source here). Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Conservation

 * What, if anything, is being done to help? Are the species which are endangered growable in captivity?
 * Added a little bit here. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Uses

 * This section seems short, not mentioning the food coloring use of violaxanthin.
 * Its terseness reflects the paucity of sources. These lichens are used not as a source of violaxanthin for food coloring, so it seem irrelevant to mention it here. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What lichen metabolites contribute most to the use of C. braunsiana in dyes?
 * All I could find was the mention of atranorin in a source, and this, now added. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Raw material for antibiotics—what? Please explain.
 * Unfortunately, the source does not expand on this. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some research on my own and I think that what is being said is that lichens are not used in the pharmaceutical industry for any drugs we consider "approved antibiotics". Rather, lichens have antibiotic properties which leads to their use in traditional medicine around the world. A study of a combination of different lichen extracts seems to show its antibiotic effects, but I'm unsure of the reliability of the journal. Nevertheless, I think this helps to explain what they were trying to say. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I found another source that helped me tweak and hopefully clarify the wording. Esculenta (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

GA criterion 6

 * This article actually seems over illustrated to me, but not too much. I would make two removals: the image from the Tokyo museum is of perhaps uncertain copyright, as some museums claim copyright on images taken within, and I'm sure of Japanese law. Either way, this image is the lowest quality in the article: unnatural, manmade location; has an unnecessary label; bad lighting; low resolution. Also, I don't see a good reason to allow for a MOS:SANDWICH in either this case or in the case of the chemical diagram of violaxanthin, which also seems irrelevant (MOS:IRELEV).
 * Removed both images. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Once the above are handled, feel free to ping me and I'll carry out a final review. If not, I'll carry one out in seven days—unclear to me at this moment if it'd pass w/no changes, but it might. Definitely make changes or provide answers if you can. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful review. I've responded to each of your points above, with a request for clarification on one. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Clarification provided. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The last two points have been addressed above. Esculenta (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Final review
Thanks for the prompt corrections. I do apologize if some of my comments were dumb, I do not edit taxonomy articles and have little knowledge of the subject, so I just treated this review as a reader who for some reason needed to know a bunch about sea-storm lichens ASAP. Please let me know how I did, I am pleased to the article as a GA. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is definitely better now after your review, so I consider that a win! Thanks again. Esculenta (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)