Talk:Tuckermannopsis ciliaris/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 01:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments follow soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• He described the lobes as crisped and ciliate – I wonder if it really makes sense to repeat the first description in the history section? Wouldn't it be better to merge this with the "description" section? You don't state if this description is outdated now or still holds true, so I am not sure what the reader should take from it.

• I see value in keeping Acharius's historical description in the taxonomy section for a few reasons: it's part of the historical taxonomic record and shows how the species was originally characterized; it uses historical terminology ("crisped", "ciliate") that differs from modern descriptions; and it provides context for why Acharius classified it as he did. That said, I revised the prose by adding a brief note linking the historical and modern descriptions ("He emphasised two key diagnostic features that remain important today..."), and streamlined Acharius's description to focus on the most taxonomically relevant details. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• The thallus was cartilaginous and became more reticulated, The apothecia were – Why past tense instead of present tense? Is this referring to a lost type specimen?

• Nope, just some awkward prose. I tweaked it to use past tense for the historical act of description ("Acharius described...") and present tense for the enduring characteristics of the species ("the thallus is cartilaginous..."). Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• putting the species in genus – placing ... within the genus?

• Revised text. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Using a "temporal phylogenetic" approach – not really helpful, without elaborating what a "temporal phylogenetic" approach is supposed to be; I suggest to explain this or delete the "temporal".

• Changed to "Using a phylogenetic approach that incorporated estimates of when different groups evolved over time..." Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• measure up to 7 long – I am sure its something smaller than m, but what unit?

• Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• C− medulla. – What is a C medulla?

• Made text more explanatory. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• acid-α-collatolic acid chemotype - I don't understand anything here

• Now hopefully more understandable: "Tuckermannopsis americana is a chemical variant (chemotype) of T. ciliaris that produces different substances, alectoronic acid and α-collatolic acid, instead of the olivetoric and physodic acids found in typical T. ciliaris." Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Tuckermannopsis ciliaris is widely distributed across North America and the Old World – Apparently confined to northern regions, as you only discuss these in the text? But you do not mention this specificly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I generalized too much for the lead; have now revised. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing, I'll get to these in the next day or two. Esculenta (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Jens: thanks again for your helpful comments. The changes based on your suggestions are these. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good! Promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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.