Talk:Phacopsis

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phacopsis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 02:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Long time no see Esculenta. I'll grab this article for review. Right off the bat, I notices the header 'Systematics' instead of 'Taxonomy'. While I am unsure if Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi has a specific MOS I am missing, 'Taxonomy' is generally the more standard name. Please indicate when an issue has been resolved by a  Done, strikethrough, or some other means. Etriusus (Talk) 02:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Image

• Image rights seem to be in order.
• Images are appropriate for the piece.

Sourcing

• Spot checks look good
• No dead links found
• No concerns on reliability of sources.

Copy-vios

• Earwig isn't picking up anything.

---

Prose

Lead

• "the identity of their host lichen." awkward phrase, reword

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Systematics

• Title change to 'taxonomy'

• This section includes molecular phylogenetics, which is not part of taxonomy. Systematics is a more inclusive term that includes classification, taxonomy, nomenclature, and phylogeny. I thought about dividing using subheadings, but the section doesn't seem long enough to me. 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Esculenta (talk).

• 'segregate' WP:TECHNICAL.

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• 'The last of these species' specify

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• 'strict sense' WP:TECHNICAL.

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• 'The genus Protousnea has a sister taxon relationship with Phacopsis, which has been estimated to have evolved from its ancestors during the Miocene (23.03 to 5.333 mya)which has been estimated' Clarify if you're referring to Protousnea or Phacopsis, or if this is when they diverged.

• Clarified it is the estimated divergence time. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Add an evolution timeframe to the taxobox if this refers to Phacopsis

• According to my understanding (which could be faulty), the "fossil_range" parameter of the taxobox is used when there's actual fossils; in this case, the timeframe is estimated based on ancestral character reconstruction analyses. Does this parameter still apply? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know if there was any fossil record to support the claim. No need to go to the taxobox. Etriusus (Talk) 04:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Description

• Link staining technique: Iodine–starch test

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Distribution

• 'probably occurs wherever the host does' Reword

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• 'poorly known' expand

• Clarified "poorly known" (I hope). Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Species

• I need to read up on the MOS for this. The lists are fine but the inclusion of author subscript in the paragraph body is rather difficult to read.

• Not sure what the MOS says specifically about this, but usage of small font for author abbreviations is routine in fungus/lichen articles; see Cetrelia or Edvard August Vainio for vetted examples. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this one.

A general note, the page dances around WP:TECHNICAL a few times, I highlighted the most relevant examples needing clarification. It's very well written overall, made some minor CEs and did a little link work. As usual, placing the page on hold. Etriusus (Talk) 02:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Translating myco-jargon to layman English is always my main issue with these types of articles, so thanks for paying special attention to this! Thanks for the review Etriusus, it's much appreciated. Let me know if there's more I can tweak. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Much better, gave the page a second pass and it looks ready to be signed off. Congrats on another GA. Etriusus (Talk) 04:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.