Talk:Parmelia sulcata/GA1

Latest comment: 2 days ago by Chiswick Chap in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

There's very little wrong with this short species article, so my comments will be brief.

  • Guess the redlinked chemicals in 'Description' are marginally useful here, someone might (sound of pigs motoring above) just fill in the gaps. But I wonder whether consalazinic acid couldn't just redirect to salazinic acid?
  • "three specific Trebouxia species:" - one only has a number, one a redlink (guess that's ok, if not ideal), and one is "aff.", i.e. hasn't got a name all its own. Is the word "species" right in this situation, and are not species always specific?
  • The first subsection of 'Uses' should have a heading of its own, 'Dyestuff' or something similar.
  • Maybe say "In Canada, the Métis ... Saanich ...".
  • The 'Environmental monitoring' section covers 2 topics, pollution (presumably nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and such), as it's sensitive to air quality (and dies, i.e. monitoring is by its presence/absence); and heavy metals/radionuclides, as it bioaccumulates (but isn't sensitive, and monitoring is by tested levels, ppm or whatever). Perhaps these should be separate paragraphs, as the mechanisms are quite different.
  • Not obvious why Choisy needs to be in the lead, as he's only briefly mentioned in the text.
  • Soredia is linked but not soralia.
  • Now linked in prominent location (image caption)
  • Don't we usually say P. sulcata rather than spelling it out every time? You've used the abbreviation in 'Molecular studies' but mostly not elsewhere.
  • The images are all on Commons and plausibly licensed.
  • It might be worth adding an image of Parmelia saxatilis for comparison, since it is recorded as being confused with that species, also an important dyestuff.
  • The sources I spot-checked are fine.

OK, that's it from me. Interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing; I'll work on these over the next couple of days. Esculenta (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.