Talk:Chrysothrix chlorina

Chrysothrix chlorina has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 22, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Fungi: Lichens Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this review in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Spotchecks:
- "The species underwent numerous taxonomic shifts, having been proposed for or transferred to different genera throughout its history" is sourced to this source which supports the information
- "A novel four-segmented dsRNA virus was detected in Chrysothrix chlorina. This virus, named Chrysothrix chrysovirus 1 (CcCV1), is related to those found in the genus Alphachrysovirus, with some phylogenetic similarity to chrysoviruses that occur in filamentous ascomycetous fungi. It is one of the first mycoviruses identified from a lichen." is sourced to this source which supports the information
- "A study in the Suruli watershed of the Southern Western Ghats documented Chrysothrix chlorina on various substrates: bark, rock, wood, leaves, moss, and ground." is sourced to this source which supports the information
Lead:
- "The lichen has a circumboreal distribution" can we have a quick definition of circumboreal here in the lead so we don't lose the reader right off?
  - Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Link and definition of "substrates"?
  - I swapped out "substrates" for "surfaces" in the lead", and linked it later in the article text. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomic history:
- "remain adhered in cushion-like masses" wouldn't "stick together" be less jargony?
  - Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "distinct in its sterile state" ... link and/or description of what "sterile state" is? And how does this complicate classification efforts?
  - Added & clarified. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1959, Elke Mackenzie highlighted Rolf Santesson's belief had mentioned that the taxon Farinaria sparsa" "had mentioned" here is odd - I think something got garbled?
  - Now ungarbled with a bit of extra detail added. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Description:
- "It typically forms a continuous, ranging from non-areolate to strongly areolate" forms a continuous .. what?

Oops - thallus. Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- "0.1 and 0.2 mm, and can be up to about 1 mm thick" conversions to imperial please?
  - I don't think giving imperial conversions for such short distances is useful to the reader (is it even possible to even identify a range of 0.004 and 0.008 inches on a ruler?). Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chemistry:
- "but contemporary analyses prefer more sensitive methods like thin-layer chromatography, are typically used instead." either "but contemporary analyses prefer more sensitive methods like thin-layer chromatography, which are typically used instead" or "but contemporary analyses prefer more sensitive methods like thin-layer chromatography."
  - Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth for another lichen review. My changes are here. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]