Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edvard August Vainio/archive1

Edvard August Vainio

 * Nominator(s): Esculenta (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent Finnish lichenologist, arguably one of the most important historical figures in this somewhat esoteric field. I've been working on it for about half a year, when I started it from a redlink. In that time, I've obtained and read all of the important sources about this man, save for two short Finnish-language articles I could not obtain, which have been listed in "Further reading". The article has been through a GA review, and several temporally spaced rounds of copyediting by myself and offline colleagues. I've used another recently promoted, somewhat related FA biography as a template to help guide me during the construction of this article. Having read the WP:MoS, I think it adheres quite closely to the recommended styling (although I'm happy to be further educated on things I've missed or misinterpreted). Thanks for reading. Esculenta (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Finnish geography etc.
Hi, I don't feel confident enough to be a reviewer as I know nothing about this field, but I read this with interest after spotting it in the FAC list! I'm Finnish and speak Finnish as my first language, and therefore thought that I could offer my help with anything related to Finnish history, geography, spelling etc. in the article. There were a couple of things that I spotted:


 * "Edvard was one of several children of parents Carl Johan Lang and Adolfina Polén, both of whom were bailiffs." – His father was, but his mother wasn't. I doublechecked what the source said, as it sounded strange that a woman could have a held such a position in the 19th century.
 * I misinterpreted the source – now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "In the early 1860s, Carl Johan was transferred to the municipality of Hollola near Lake Vesijärvi in southern Finland, and the family settled into a farm near Laitila." Hollola and Laitila are quite far from each other, therefore it seems that there is a typo here or some sort of a misunderstanding. 'Laitila' is a fairly common name, so it's possible that a part of Hollola was called that? In any case, I would double-check the sources.
 * Rereading the source, it seems that maybe the farm itself was celled Laitila? I've changed the text to indicate that it was close to the border of Asikkala. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "the plant and cryptogam floras of Tavastehus"— Tavastehus is the Swedish name for Hämeenlinna. I would double-check which is the more commonly used name in English, but at least English WP's article uses Hämeenlinna rather than Tavastehus.
 * Changed it so it's aligned with English WP. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Apart from that, looks very good! Feel free to ask if you have any language-related questions, I can try to clear things up. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Thanks so much for reading, you have caught some errors that would have been very difficult for me to find! Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy I could be of assistance! One more thing I was wondering: what is the significance of Lake Vesijärvi to Vainio's life and career? Most Finnish municipalities are in the vicinity of at least one lake, therefore I think it needs to be clarified why this lake in particular is mentioned. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Several of the sources I used mention this lake, so I thought I should also. To add more relevance to this article, I added mention of the fact that Norlinn and young Vainio went on their botanical excursions in the area surrounding the lake. Esculenta (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Vainio_1924.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Ditto File:Matkustus_Brasiliassa._Kuvaus_luonnostaja_kansoista_Brasiliassa_1888_cover.jpg, File:Evard_August_Vainio.jpg
 * Added PD-US-expired to both. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the first case, the publication listed is after 1926 - was there an earlier publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. I've switched to PD-1996. Esculenta (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 70 years after a publication date of 1934 would put expiration after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I figured out that my original Finland-PD tag was incorrect (this is not a "work of art") and I've switched to the correct PD-Finland50 tag. So it became PD in 1984, and makes the URAA deadline (I think). Esculenta (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * File:HU-main-building-1870.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
 * Added PD-1996. I added the publication date of the original source (Jan 1 1989), to show it meets the second requirement of this tag (published before 1 March 1989). Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Johannes_Müller_Argoviensis.png: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
 * We don't, so I switched to tags PD-France (anonymously authored photo published in Paris 70+ years ago) and PD-US-expired. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * File:William_Nylander-2.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Thore_Fries_x_Emil_Österman.jpg
 * For the first, author is unknown, so I replaced PD-old with both PD-Finland50 and PD-US-expired. Couldn't find the death date for the second, so I swapped out this image for one in which the photographer's death year is known (1950); I guess the "life plus 70 years or fewer" requirement of the PD tag is met as of today. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * File:University_of_Turku_1922_pic4.jpg needs a US tag and publication details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a PD-US-expired tag. Couldn't find publication details, but the photo is from 1922 (depicting the official opening of the university) so it clearly meets the creation + 50 years part of PD-Finland50. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't find publication details, how do you know this was published before 1926? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Poking around, I found this image in the University of Turku archives, but their licensing isn't Wikipedia friendly. So I swapped for a similar image that's CC-BY-4.0. Esculenta (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Nikkimaria, are you happy? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I'm copyediting as I read through; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
 * Your copyedits are great! You appear to have a much better grasp than me at trimming unnecessary verbiage. I will study the diffs and try to better apply this technique to my own writing. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Watching my prose get improved by scores of other editors here at FAC has certainly helped me, but I also think it's very difficult to copyedit your own prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * which became a heavy burden for him in his academic circles: it only becomes clear what this refers to once this part of his career is covered in the body of the article. Suggest "which led to his ostracism by the Finnish scientific community".
 * Much better, done. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * from all continents, including the Arctic and Antarctica: you say this both in the lead and the body. I know what you mean, but the Arctic isn't a continent and I think it would be best to find another way to phrase this.
 * Left out the continents and phrased more generally: "... other collections from all over the world" Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is the "Later life" section before the "Education" section?
 * An artefact of early article development. I have placed it more chronologically. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique (née Pérottin): annoyingly, I don't think there's a standard way to present the names of women in sentences about their marriage, but I think this is not ideal -- I assumed "Scolastique" was her surname and it took me a second to realize I was wrong. I would just make this "Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique Pérottin".
 * Sure, done. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was so confused by the Lang/Wainio/Vainio changes that I quit reading the article linearly and searched it for the explanation. I think you should refer to him as "Lang" until he changes his name, or else the first time you use "Vainio" in the body explain -- even if only in a footnote -- the chronology of the name changes.  And since he was Wainio for a long time we should make that clear before using "Vainio", too.
 * I've placed a footnote after the first usage of Vainio in the article text, and changed the instances of Vainio to Lang in the early life section. I contemplated similarly changing the Vainio's to Wainio's but figured it might be too confusing to the reader (indeed, it was confusing to me as I was trying to change them and remember what his name was at the time). So I haven't used the Wainio spelling in the article text, other than to explain the orthographical changes. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this some more, and I have a further suggestion, though I don't think there's an ideal way to handle this so I'm open to other ideas. The two goals are that the lead has to make it clear he held all three names, and the reader should not be confused as they read through.  I think this might work:
 * Add note 2, about his name, to the lead sentence -- I would suggest putting it before or after the current footnote 2. That allows the reader to see a more detailed explanation immediately if they wish, without interrupting the lead.
 * Expand note 2 to explain the logic of the usage in the article -- something like "His family name was originally Lang; in 1877 he adopted the Finnish name Wainio, first written with a “w”, which was a common practice at that time in the Finnish language. In 1919, he adopted the modern spelling Vainio. In this article he is referred to as Vainio for events after 1877, as this is the name by which he is known within lichenology."
 * Currently note 2 follows the first use of his name. I think we have to have something in the text itself.  How about "During his time as a graduate student, Vainio, who had by now given up his original surname,[note 2] published two works on the cryptogams of Finland"?
 * I think this is a great solution, and although I struggled with figuring out how to correctly name a footnote for resuse, I think this diff implements your idea. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, a pedantic note: you have né Lang until 1877 in the lead, but he was né Lang after 1877, technically. How about "Edvard August Vainio (né Lang; Wainio from 1877 to 1919; ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pedantry is welcome – changed to your suggestion. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * against either the long traditional Swedishness or the attempted Russification of his country: wouldn't "both" make more sense than "either"?
 * Yes; fixed. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * MoS requires either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes in running prose; you have multiple examples of both -- please make them all one or all the other.
 * Changed to consistently unspaced em in the article text. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In one of Nylander's publications,[30] eleven new species were described based on the collections of "E. Lang". Since something similar happened with Nylander's 1870 publication that credited Lang, I would make it clear that this was the second time Nylander had done this; I had to go back to the "Early life" section to be sure this wasn't a duplicated mention of the first instance.
 * Actually, in the first 1870 publication, it was Norrlin (not Nylander) that credited Lang. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In these publications, Vainio determined the lichen material he collected from the Vyborg region: I'm not familiar with this use of "determined"; is it standard in the field to mean identification, or analysis? If so I'd suggest glossing it or substituting less specialized language.
 * Sure, changed to the more accessible phrasing "analysed and identified". Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * gave him the qualification of a docent and his teaching rights: suggest "qualified him as a docent and gave him teaching rights".
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * With the help of grants from the university, Vainio made several scientific expeditions abroad around this time. Since this is a new section, there's not a good referent for "around this time". Perhaps "early in his career"?
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "collecting excursion"? You use the phrase twice in the "Work abroad" section.  I would have thought this meant a trip to a location to collect specimens, but it appears from the article that Vainio and Gounelle were staying at the Santuário do Caraça and did not go anywhere else.  Perhaps something like "The French entomologist Pierre-Émile Gounelle stayed at the monastery while Vainio was there, and some of their collecting work was done together"?
 * I'm using it the sense of "a short trip to collect specimens", but have used your wording above in the second instance in the "Work abroad" section. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * and suffered a sandfly infestation: I don't think "infestation" is the best word. Perhaps make it "He ended up spending a night in a wet, sandfly-infested cave without food, water, or a way to make fire."  Then make it "sandfly larvae" in the sentence about his recovery.
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * with about 1600 collections packed in five large crates: surely this should refer to samples, not collections?
 * Yes, changed. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Few non-specialist readers will understand "exsiccatae"; I'd suggest giving a parenthetical definition.
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do we need to mention Regnell at all? We've listed three other Nordic scientists as examples.
 * Nope; now trimmed. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * he later became known infamously for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts: suggest either "he later became infamous for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or, perhaps better, "he later became known for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or "known for having held"; "infamous" is a bit strong for encyclopedic tone.
 * Good idea, done. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So firm is the public conscious: can you confirm this is a correct quote? "Conscience" would make more sense than "conscious" here.
 * I corrected my faulty transcription. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "For many significant details on the world's Cladonia's, ...": shouldn't this be "Cladonias", without the apostrophe?
 * It sure should, but it's a quote, so we'll let the error stay! Esculenta (talk)
 * Struck, but per MOS:SIC you can change insignificant errors; I'd say this qualifies. Up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me of that, I've fixed the error. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's everything I can see on a read-through. A remarkably detailed and very thoroughly researched article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Mike, I'm grateful for the improvements. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. The last couple of points above have been taken care of. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe

 * Source checks
 * Note: you will still need a source review for reliability and formatting
 * Haikurainen: "In these works—considered the earliest publications on phytogeography in the Finnish language..." not supported by Haikurainen source, which I read as saying that Norrlin was first, unless I'm missing something?
 * The first citation given at the end of the sentence (Magnusson 1934, p. 6) covers this; referring to two Vainio publications, “Both these papers hold a prominent position in the history of Finnish botany, being the first publications on plant geography in the Finnish language, and as such the fundament of the Finnish terminology on plant geography.” The Haikurainen citation is used to source the fact that several of the terms he coined are now standard Finnish phytogeographical terms. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Magnusson 1930
 * p. 5: Close paraphrasing: "public school pupil E. Lang" is lifted from the source. It's sufficient to say "credited Lang" here.
 * I rephrased this four-word sequence instead of trimming, as I think it’s interesting that a school student was credited on an academic paper. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * pp. 5–6 I don't see where the name of the university is mentioned
 * I've swapped for a source that covers all the facts in that sentence, including the name of the university. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * p. 6: Whenever you use a quote, you need to state the author of the quote; i.e. Magnusson states that...
 * I've now attributed the Magnusson quote. Esculenta (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "he started lecturing on botany" I don't see where on the cited page the claim is supported
 * Good catch, I had the wrong page. Page 8 says “He became lecturer (docent) on botany in 1880 …”


 * Supported
 * p. 7: No issues
 * p. 8: No issues
 * Väre 2017: no issues
 * Michell: Close paraphrasing, "knew that the ideal arrangement would have lichen genera positioned next to their nearest non-lichenized relatives, but all he could realistically do was assign lichens and 'ascomycetes to one natural group...," (source) "understood that the ideal classification scheme would have positioned lichen genera close to their nearest non-lichenized relatives, all he could realistically do with the information he had available was assign lichens and ascomycetes to one group" (article) You need to rewrite in your own words. swapped for synonyms.
 * rewritten as follows: “Although the ideal classification scheme would place lichen genera near their closest non-lichenized fungal relatives, with the limited information Vainio had available the solution he devised was to designate lichens and ascomycetes to one group and place the lichens in separate classes, the Discolichenes and Pyrenolichenes.”


 * Linkola 1934
 * p. 3: I changed the page number so all the content would be verified
 * Thank-you. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * p. 5: I changed the page number to verify the age difference, which I changed to 11 years to match the source. " Norlinn would marry Lang's sister in 1873." is not supported, it just says that he became his brother-in-law.
 * Does this phrase on page 5 not support it? "He was introduced to this branch of science by Norrlin, since 1873 his brother-in-law." Esculenta (talk)
 * There are multiple ways to become a brother-in-law since it can mean either "the husband of your sister or brother, or the brother of your husband or wife, or the man who is married to the sister or brother of your wife or husband" Otherwise I'm satisfied with the fixes here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I doubled up the citations here; the second source explicitly says "married". Esculenta (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments on sources
 * Ideally you should add an identifier such as doi, issn, isbn or oclc to each print resource
 * I’ve gone through the list and added issns or oclcs to the remaining sources that were not otherwise linked or lacked identifiers; for the one remaining print resource in "Further reading" I could not find any identifiers. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please be more consistent about how you list works. For example, putting all books and journal articles in the bibliography would be more consistent. For publications like Jørgensen, Per M. (2017) or Kaila, Annu; Vasander, Harri (2010) it would be more verifiable to put in the bibliography and cite the exact page number that supports the claim made.
 * For these two you listed, I did that. For the rest, either the page ranges are small enough the reader can verify quickly on their own with document in hand, or specific page numbers I don't think are required. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Citing entire books, like you do for Alava, R. (1988), Alava, R. (2008), isn't ideal for verifiability reasons. In these cases, it's preferable to cite the exact page (i.e. in the introduction) where the author says what the book covers.
 * Would appreciate further guidance on this. For these two books (which I don't actually have), I've found book reviews that I could use instead to source the sentences, but I'd still like to give the bibliographic information about these books somewhere in the article. Should I double up citations? List the two books in a footnote? Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Came up with another solution: I cited book reviews to source the sentences about the books, and put the books into "Further reading". Esculenta (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Other comments
 * Kudos for following MOS:CHANGEDNAME. But this makes it hard to follow the first part of the post-lead section. I would write "Edvard August Vainio was born Edvard Lang..." to avoid the reader's confusion.
 * You removed part of an explanatory note in the lead sentence that I thought would help prepare the reader for the triple name change to follow. Perhaps it was not as clear as I believed? Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Vainio, who had by now given up his original surname" Awkwardly phrased I would just state in text that he changed his name in 1877.
 * Buidhe, just sticking my nose in to make sure you noticed that he actually changed his name twice, which makes the wording particularly difficult to get right. I think we should avoid implying that his name became Vainio in 1877, but make it clear it was no longer Lang. Note 1 was intended to help the reader follow this, but perhaps that needs to be in the text; I suggested a note to avoid clogging up the first sentence of the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "was not impressed with Vainio's choice of language for his publications" -> "disliked that Vainio chose to write in Finnish"?
 * Less is more – changed to your wording. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "It is sad for the science as also for Mr Candidate Lang..." is this blockquote necessary? It seems to say more about Nylander than Vainio. I would just remove it.
 * I'd like to keep it, as it helps explain the growth of Nylander's dislike towards Vainio. It does say a lot about Nylander, which is kind of the point. He had a tendency to become priggish, haughty, and dismissive toward those who did not hold the same scientific views as him. Before it was there, the GA reviewer thought the article was too vague about what Nylander's problem was, and I thought this quote illustrated his attitude quite well. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from JM
I'm so excited to see this here; I'd love to have an article about lichenology on the main page. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Note to directors: I am taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At other FACs, I have seen people object to the in-line interwiki links (e.g., "Johan Petter Norrlin [fi]"). I'm inclined to agree -- this isn't something that exists outside of Wikipedia (you won't find it in OUP's manual of style...) and I'm not sure it's really supported in the MOS. I worry it's a symtom of people's aversion to redlinks, but I'm of the opinion (an opinion reflected in longstanding guidelines!) that we should welcome redlinks!
 * MOSSIS says "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible.", and WP:ILL doesn't discourage their use, so I'm not seeing where its use is discouraged. I did check to make sure that the links were useful; eg. note I didn't interwiki link the redlinked species to the more or less useless articles on Cebuano Wikipedia! I should note that I have partly-finished drafts for about half the remaining redlinks in the article, and it's a medium-term goal to eliminate redlinks entirely from this article. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. MOSSIS also says "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, or where appropriate in citations. Two exceptions are links to Wiktionary and Wikisource that may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed)." If that guideline covers links to other-language Wikipedias, it would be very odd not to mention these kinds of links as an exception if they were encouraged. WP:ILL, meanwhile, is not a policy or a guideline; it's a how-to. I am happy to agree with you that no guideline explicitly says that these links shouldn't be used. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In the lead, it feels a bit like we jump from a kid with an older friend to an associate professor. Would it perhaps be worth half a sentence on his university studies?
 * Sure, I've added a bit to make the transition less abrupt. Esculenta (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "the "Father of Brazilian lichenology" and the "Grand Old Man of lichenology"." I always twitch when I see direct quotes without citations. YMMV.
 * I removed the quote marks, as enough sources have used these monikers that I don't think it needs to appear as a quote. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "of bailiff Carl Johan Lang" If this is in British English, that should be the bailiff. (See false title.) Also "to father Carl Johan's work" -- this one's a nice example of the problem, as he's no priest! And "of museum director Ladislau de Souza Mello Netto", "German botanist Fritz Mattick", "Danish naturalist Peter Wilhelm Lund", "Danish botanists Peter Clausen and his assistant Eugenius Warming", "explorers and botanists Friedrich Welwitsch and Hans Schinz", "Hungarian botanist Hugó Lojka", "Portuguese botanist and army doctor Américo Pires de Lima", "German lichenologist Ferdinand Christian Gustav Arnold", " Norwegian botanist Per Magnus Jørgensen "
 * I did some research on this topic after commenting on another FAC; I came to the conclusion that the use or non-use of the definite article was more and more becoming a matter of stylistic preference, even in British English (as our own article on the subject seems to suggest). I think the father example is covered by the fact that it's not capitalized (and thus not an honorific). Is there a relevant MOS-link that discusses this? Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not mentioned in the MOS or elsewhere. We'd have to look to off-Wikipedia style guidelines/usage guides. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "he credited E. Lang" If you want to quote, use quote marks (as you do below) but I'd recommend just going with "Lang".
 * Trimmed the "E.". Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Adjumenta ad Lichenographiam Lapponiae fennicae atque Fenniae borealis" Is there a reason you've not provided an English translation?
 * Missed that one–added now. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "considered the earliest publications on phytogeography in the Finnish language" -- I wonder if this belongs in the lead, and also wonder whether describing him simply as a "lichenologist" in the opening sentence is underselling his non-lichenological contributions!
 * I've now mentioned this in the lead. Wouldn't feel comfortable calling him anything but a lichenologist, considering that's what all the sources call him, and his phytogeographical and botanical work, although important, was such a small part of the scientific output. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fair, thanks. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * " the reindeer lichen and British soldiers lichen species" ELsewhere, you provide specific names when mentioning species
 * I added these common names in here at the suggestion of the GA reviewer, with the rationale that the layman reader might recognize some familiar names to associate with the genus. Since Vainio didn't do anything specific with these species, I didn't think it necessary to also include the Latin name. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "species definitions in Cladonia" Odd phrase. "definitions of Cladonia species", perhaps?\
 * Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Even during his docentship, Vainio continued to work additional modest jobs: teaching botany at the Leppäsuo [fi] horticultural school (1878–1882); natural sciences at the Swedish Private Lyceum (1879–1882); the Swedish Real Lyceum (1881–1884); the Finnish Primary School (1882–1884); the Finnish Girls' School (1882–1884), and the Finnish Graduate School (1882–1884)." I fear this sentence needs reworking. If I understand you correctly, you're saying he taught botany at one school, and natral sciences at several others. If so, how about: "Even during his docentship, Vainio continued to work additional modest jobs. He taught botany at the Leppäsuo [fi] horticultural school (1878–1882), and taught natural sciences variously at the Swedish Private Lyceum (1879–1882); the Swedish Real Lyceum (1881–1884); the Finnish Primary School (1882–1884); the Finnish Girls' School (1882–1884); and the Finnish Graduate School (1882–1884).
 * I like your wording and have changed it so. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * " properly (pressed) and dried" If you've added the word pressed, I think square brackets are standard.
 * Parenthetical word is as it appears in the source. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * " the Pico do Sol [pt]–2,107 m (6,913 ft)." Check your dash use.
 * Switched to unspaced emdash. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "in Autumn of 1888" Earlier, you had spring. I confess I don't know which is right.
 * Decapitalized. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. A really top-notch article so far. (Please double-check my edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking again.
 * More false titles -- "Norwegian lichenologist Bernt Lynge", "Finnish botanist Reino Alava",
 * See reply/query above. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about "Later life"; "Personal life" would be usual, or "Personal life and character" might capture the contents better. It's particularly strange to read about his death (what was the cause, incidentally?) and then soon after jump into a discussion of his "later life" that begins with his marriage decades earlier.
 * The section rename is a good idea, and avoids me having to arrange all the personal bits chronologically throughout the article; done. The cause of death is already given in the final paragraph of that section. Esculenta (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "thallus" is undefined jargon
 * Now linked. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason you've not provided links for some of the species named after him?
 * Yes: the unlinked ones are those for which an article should not be written, as they appear to be obsolete "one-offs" that have not been mentioned in the literature since their original publications; I've started articles for all the others (or plan to). Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood -- happy to defer to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've not looked closely at the images or sources, but this definitely feels FA-worthy. Great job. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! Replied to some; still thinking about the others. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a stellar article. Esculenta and I have some stylistic disagreements, as noted above. If other reviewers raise these concerns, perhaps they can be revisited. But they shouldn't stop me from offering my support. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde
Feel free to revert/discuss any copyedits that I make. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per recent discussions at WT:FAC and on specific FACs, some technical terms (not all, but some) will likely need glossing; "cryptogams", for instance.
 * " Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica" could be translated?
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "he discovered 324 species in the vicinity of Vyborg" did he discover, in the sense of being the first scientist to describe them as species? or did he catalog species known to science? The wording is ambiguous.
 * Clarified meaning. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * link "thesis"; likely doctoral, but there are other forms...
 * I've reworded to remove the first instance of the unlinked "thesis"; now "dissertation" is linked (which redirects to thesis), and I use thesis as as a synonym later. Let me know if you think this might cause confusion. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The mention of the Russian border in "Education" is confusing given that we learned that the region was part of the Russian Empire earlier; could you be more specific? I assume you mean the border between the Duchy and Russia proper, but it isn't obvious.
 * You are correct; clarified in text. Esculenta (talk)


 * "phylogeny" would be helpful to gloss; also Kaarlo Linkola, Morphology (in the body); docent, which has differing meanings by location and time;
 * Phylogeny is now glossed; Kaarlo Linkola and docent are already linked on 1st occurrence (although I'm not opposed to repeating links in general). Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Linkola and "docent" need a gloss, too, as the reader's interpretation of the sentences depend on those terms. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would duplicate the citation you use for notes in the main text.
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean ... you would prefer it read "..who had by now given up his original surname,[note 1][2][3]", where [2] and [3] are the same citations given in the note? Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer that; the reader who does not wish to click to the note can then still see the citations. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Johan Reinhold Sahlberg (docent in entomology) and Professor Sextus Otto Lindberg; I would use parentheses for the titles of both these men, or commas; "Professor" in particular seems to violate MOS:CREDENTIAL
 * I parenthesized Lindburg's title. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Vainio's research was focused on lichens, and he collected them from all over Finland and abroad" This sentence strikes me as redundant to content before and after.
 * I agree and have removed the sentence (funny how I didn't see that until it was mentioned to me!). Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "of this group of taxa" is there a reason Cladonia is not simply a taxon?
 * It could be either, but I reworded to avoid using the word taxa here. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "16 are still considered valid species" this is from a 1998 source; taxonomy has been frequently revised following genetic analyses; is a recent source available? If not, at the very least this needs to mention the date.
 * Good point; I have qualified the statement by included a date for the study. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The "Work abroad" section includes many paragraphs on work conducted in Finland, it would seem; perhaps worth breaking up? It's also a long section.
 * I've added another subsection ("Work in Finland") to break up the length. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "about half were described as new to science" this is odd wording; "half were new to science"? this is used elsewhere, too.
 * "New to science" is a standard term of art in biological sciences where new species are frequently described, and I think it's fairly intuitive what it means. That said, I left one instance and reworded the other occurrences. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I wasn't clear; "new to science" is very standard; I'm suggesting saying "half were new to science" rather than "half were described as new to science". It's the "described as" that strikes me as unnecessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "only about 30 lichen species were known in the country" I would suggest saying "only 30 species had been described"; it's fairly certain the lack from from a lack of study, rather than a lack of understanding...
 * Agree; have reworded. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The text about Vainio publishing in Finnish is somewhat redundant to the above; is there any way of condensing it?
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what specific parts you think are redundant; is it that he published both the first Finnish-language phytogeography paper as well as the first Finnish-language natural sciences dissertation? Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "merging the classification of non-lichenized fungi and lichenized fungi" I don't think this is comprehensible to the general reader, or even to many biologists. Is it crucial to the article? If so, I think we need more explanation; and if it's lengthy, perhaps in a footnote.
 * It is important, but it is discussed in more detail in the third paragraph of "Legacy", so I just trimmed the sentence from that spot. Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "must have been a further blow to him personally" "must have been" is an odd turn of phrase for an encyclopedia article. Does the source say it was? If so, we can just say so outright, or attribute it.
 * It does say that (in Finnish), so I've attributed the statement more explicitly to the author. Esculenta (talk)


 * " the Russian Empire pursued the policy of Russification" "Russification" really needs further explanation, and possibly a link too.
 * Added a link to Russification and glossed it; there's a later link to the more directly relevant Russification of Finland later on. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Vainio suffered deeply from the consequences caused by this action" If this means Vainio felt unhappy, then I'd suggest rewording; also it isn't clear what "this action" is.
 * I've reorganized and reworded around these parts; please check if it flows more smoothly. Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Vainio was forced to suspend his teaching position" I don't quite understand what this means; usually, that would be an employer's decision, not his?
 * Poor word choice on my part. I swapped "forced to" with "obliged" (per original source), and added a bit of explanation about why he did this. Esculenta (talk)


 * ", who applied every means of pressure to suppress Finnish nationalism" this feels a little coatrack-y in the personal life section; if it is included, it ought to be where Russification is mentioned above, and I'd suggest rewording "every means".
 * This has been reworded and trimmed. Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The material about his patriotism makes one wonder why he worked as a censor; is any further information available about this?
 * I added a bit that explains he was frustrated with his job prospects at the university, and had a family of five to feed. Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's clearer, thanks; also my other concerns about Russification etc have been resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "These outdated ideas" strikes me as over-use of Wikipedia's voice. That the ideas were outmoded is made clear by the fact that they were abandoned later; I would skip the adjective entirely.
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 'In his memorial address"; a date would be useful.
 * Added. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * " and have been sunk into synonymy with other genera" this is somewhat jargon-filled; I also wonder if it's necessary, as "obsolete" largely covers this.
 * Sure, trimmed the jargon. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's everything from me. I am not qualified to judge the comprehensiveness here, but the article is remarkably detailed, and an easy read; nice work. I expect to support once my comments are addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comments, they have helped to improve the article. I've replied to all points above; two need further clarification. Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support; two brief replies for you to deal with, but they are minor. I found this to be an admirably readable article. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cited literature
 * Formatting
 * A minor point, but in the "selected publications" you use "——————————" for repeated authors, this is not done here though—I would think sticking to one way or the other is ideal
 * In the first instance, I use the "author-mask" parameter to avoid having to list Vainio's name a dozen times in a row; in the "Cited literature" section, there is only one instance of a repeat author, so I don't think it's necessary to hide the single repeat of Linkola. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, I didn't notice Linkola was the only double author—I assumed there were more Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting looks good here overall in this section, see my comment in verifiability with possible improvements for here

Citations
 * ref 3 needs an ISBN here
 * Added. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 18 & 134 seems to be the only journals you include a retrieval dates for, I would remove them for consistency
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * trans-title for refs 57, 60, 61 & 104?
 * Added. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * language parameters & trans titles missing for refs 63–65
 * Added. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 105 should have the english title in trans-title & use the original Swedish title
 * The original "Swedish" title is a Latin expression ("In memoriam"), but I've added a translation. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Really confused about the formatting of ref 133, what is Pp513 and whats all of the "Turku: University of Turku. 1988. Pp513, 1 map"; why is the author not formatting like the rest?
 * 128 is confusing me in the same way
 * These are the actual titles of the sources, according to the doi –> citation tool I use, but I have trimmed the titles of unnecessary details (hope that's ok). Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, I incorrectly assumed those were just errors, looks fine then. Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * double listing of publisher in 129? "Publications from the Herbarium, University of Turku. 9. Turku: University of Turku"?
 * The title of the series is actually "Publications from the Herbarium, University of Turku", so when both series title and publisher are given in the citation, it appears as if duplicated. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird! Well no worries then Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * trans title for ref 142?
 * Added. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * seems to be it here


 * Reliability
 * Will assess later but looks good from a glance
 * This may happen later today or tomorrow, not sure. Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any questionable sources, mostly from established academic journals, else looks good. Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Verifiability
 * While not (I don't think) required, many of the journals are lacking an identifier of any kind, and would certainly benefit from any; examples: doi here for Haikurainen, ISSN for Hertel, OCLC for Linkola 1934, OCLC for Linkola, ISSN for Uotila; these are some examples, there may be more...
 * I've added all of these plus a few more. I think every journal now has either a direct link or identifier (or both). Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, looking better
 * Spotchecks seem to have been done already above Aza24 (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts, Aza24. I hope the changes are satisfactory. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Aza24, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks Gog, responded above. Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "(né Lang; Wainio from 1877 until 1919;[note 1] 5 August 1853 – 14 May 1929)". I found this confusing as the first dates would normally be birth and death. As you discuss him under different names below, I suggest leaving it out and explaining the name changes as the second sentence of the article.
 * I checked MOS:CHANGEDNAME for more guidance on this; subsequently I've simplified the parenthetical part of the opening sentence in the lead as you suggested; interested readers can hover or click the note for more details. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "the eleven-years-older university student Johan Petter Norrlin" This seems an odd wording. I would prefer "university student Johan Petter Norrlin, who was eleven years older"
 * Used your wording. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "After graduating from the University of Helsinki in 1880, Vainio became an associate professor of botany at this institution, a position he held until 1906" In the main text, you say that he was refused an associate professorship and I cannot see any mention of the year 1906.
 * I rechecked the sources and rewrote the lead and the body to more accurately reflect the nature of his position. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Beiträge zur Flora des südöstlichen Tavastlands" Is this Finnish?
 * It's German, but this was written by Norrlin, not Vainio. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "still a public school student" "Public school" has a specialised meaning in the UK. Maybe "still a schoolboy"
 * Sure, done. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "During his time as a graduate student" You have not said that he was accepted as a graduate student.
 * The sentence prior now mentions he continued with his licentiate after earning his cand. phil. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Nylander, however, disliked Vainio's choice of language for his publications" This is ambiguous. I would say "choice of Finnish as the language of his publications"
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "qualified him as a docent and gave him teaching rights at the University of Helsinki" What does this mean? The article on docent says it was between associate professor and professor, but you say below he was turned down as associate professor. Does "qualified him" mean he became a docent or was eligible to apply for a vacancy? Ditto with teaching rights.
 * Hope this is now clarified; see above. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Vainio's research contradicted some of Nylander's previous work by presenting shortcomings in way he defined species in Cladonia" "presenting shortcomings" is an odd expression. Maybe "Vainio argued that Nylander had made errors in his definition of species in Cladonia"
 * Reworded this Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "lake Satyga" I think you need to check this name. I have tried googling it and this article is the only hit!
 * You would get a few more hits if you used the Cyrillic spelling; but regardless, it's in a more-or-less uninhabited area of Khanty-Mansiysk, so is not unusual to be missing from the English literature (I confirmed the transliterated spelling in the source). Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Nonetheless, by the end of his time in Caraça, he had collected a large volume of specimens." I do not think you need "Nonetheless" here. From all you say, it would be remarkable if he had been put off by his adventure!
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "In 1887, Vainio published the first of his three-volume monograph on Cladonia" What language was this in? How was he able to build a reputation if he was writing in a language very few lichenologists knew? It would be helpful to say what language each publication was in. Etude sur la classification naturelle et la morphologie des lichens du Brésil is obviously in French but you do not mention him writing in that language.
 * Language is now specified. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great input so far, looking forward to more! Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "he never obtained a permanent university position in this university". "permanent university position" is linked to professor. Why not say "professor"? Was it the only permanent position in the university?
 * I just removed the link, it was erroneous, as it was the Associate Professorship that he applied for. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Subsequently, he was forced to earn his living by working for the Russian censorship authority" "forced" seems too strong, especially as he was a Finnish nationalist.
 * Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "they considered lichens a plant group" I may have missed you saying that this is now discredited, but if I have not I think you should spell it out.
 * Now reads "Since they still subscribed to the belief that lichens were a plant group—rather than the fungus/alga symbiosis they are now known to be—they thought ..." Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "The university was intended to be administrated entirely in the Finnish language" I am not clear what you mean by "administrated". Was the administration but not the teaching to be wholly in Finnish? If both, I suggest "Teaching and administration were to be wholly in Finnish"
 * Done. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Vainio was generally healthy for most of his life, but suffered from severe nephralgia (pain in the kidney)" This seems a contradiction - he was hardly healthy if he suffered severe kidney pain.
 * It now says he acquired this ailment near the end of his life. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any estimate of how many new species he described?
 * Yes, the start of "Legacy" gives this information, but it's an important fact, so I've also placed it in the lead. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "his extensive collecting in Caraça, it has since become an international hub for lichenology and a destination for pilgrimages by lichenologists" presumably Turku not Caraça an international hub but needs clarifying.
 * It is Caraça, now clarified. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * exsiccata. This is a rare word. It is not in OED or Merriam Webster but Wiktionary has it as a dried specimen. It needs explanation.
 * I do have the plural form "exsiccatae" already glossed above in the "Career" section; should I perhaps wiktionary-link the second occurrence in the quote? Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a first rate article, but I have some general queries. 1. I am not clear how much of his work was in Finnish, and if much of it was then how he could have acquired an international reputation when few readers knew Finnish. 2. It seems very surprising that such a strong nationalist should have worked for Russian censorship and have had such limited involvement in political activities. On the latter point you can of course only go by the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: 1. His early works in Finnish were his phytogeographical papers (1st in that language about the subject of phytogeography), and then his 1880 dissertation (the 1st natural science dissertation in that language). These works were very early in his career (he was still a student); these did not give him an international reputation, but a local/national reputation as a diligent scholar willing to push academic norms by publishing in a "local" language. It was his later works (published in Latin, like most other similar academic work at the time) that gained him international repute.
 * I think this needs spelling out in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How does this look? Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have "Vainio's reputation as a prominent lichenologist was first established by his floristic treatment of the lichens collected during these trips (the Adjumenta, published in 1881 and 1883, in Latin)—even more so than his Finnish-language dissertation." This seems to me ungrammatical and unclear. How about "Finnish speaking experts had admired Vainio's dissertation, but his international reputation as a major lichenologist was first established by his floristic treatment of the lichens collected during these trips in the Adjumenta, published in Latin in 1881 and 1883." (But why floristic when they are not plants?) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's better than my clunky wording – thanks! "Floristic" because the fungal equivalents have not gained acceptance, although there have been recent initiatives to change this (and the sources use this term). Esculenta (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: 2. The article does mention that he was involved with pro-Finnish student activism in the 1870s, but it seems he was simply much more devoted to his academic work later in life. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)