Talk:Normandina pulchella

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:Normandina pulchella/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a well-written and well-structured species article, so my comments will be few and minor (or will just be suggestions).

• As a Brit I always write "coloration" without a 'u', but maybe other people do otherwise.

• Interesting; I went down a rabbit hole looking for more info about this, but it seems that most Brits still use the "British" spelling of the word. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Brit spelling is an utter shambles. I follow for instance Hugh Cott and his Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• The long quotation in 'Taxonomic history' should be formatted as a blockquote, containing its citation.

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The paragraphs need to have one or more refs repeated (or new refs if the material was uncited?) to indicate provenance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• We should introduce Nylander as a Finnish botanist.

• Done (used "taxonomist"). Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• "separate fungal and algal layers, a characteristic of heteromerous thalli". The definition of, actually, so this needs rephrasing.

• Adjusted prose. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've boldly abbreviated the genus after the first appearance in 'Classification'.

• Ok. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• 'Species interactions' would definitely benefit from a diagrammatic sketch (could be hand-drawn with added labels) of the different ways the various lichenicolous fungi make themselves at home in this lichen: the situation seems extraordinary and distinctive (even "unique", the article says), so readers would be well served with an illustration. Happy to help if there are suitable materials to work from. I doubt this can be a GAN-mandatory item despite the obvious advantages of an illustration here.

• I created a couple of articles about the lichenicolous fungus species to see if more information was available, but I'm not confident that any attempt to illustrate their interactions wouldn't border on original research. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Since the ascospores are visible and measurable in 'Description', why do we need a lengthy discussion of whether this lichen's fungal symbiont is an ascomycete in 'Classification'?

• The historical uncertainty and confusion about its classification is an important part of the scientific story. The key issue wasn't just about whether it was an ascomycete, but whether the perithecia (and thus the ascospores) belonged to N. pulchella itself or to a parasitic fungus growing on it. I added a note to the classification section to reinforce this notion ("Although the lichen's ascospores are readily observable, their origin was historically controversial.") Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• "grows on other lichens, particularly those that contain cyanobacteria": this is tantalising. Do those lichens therefore contain something that N. pulchella specifically needs, like a vitamin or mineral? I know the answer may well be "we don't know"...

• I looked for more info about this, but it seems it's not much more than a general observation at this time. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• "broadening distribution": is this faster than other lichens? i.e. is this likely just part of the response to reduced air pollution since the 1960s, or something specific? Is global warming implicated?

• Maybe and maybe, but the source doesn't expand. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• "coastal ... Austria, Bavaria, ... Czechoslovakia ...": coastal and montane, maybe?

• Correct, adjusted prose. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• A distribution map would be nice, too. It certainly sounds as if that would be possible.

• I'm not against the idea, but am wondering about the sourcing, as none of the sources I used have a range map for the species. I'm vaguely aware of scripts that take GBIF distribution data and create an interactive HTML map, but have not attempted this. Do you have any extra insight on making range maps? Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've done one or two by hand; there are certainly some folks who use scripts as you say, which would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Images

• All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.

Sources

• The papers I spot-checked verify the claims made from them.

Summary

• Well that's about it from me, another interesting article. Diagram and map seem highly desirable to me, however quiet the GA criteria are on such things! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for reviewing! Will think about these and get back to you... Esculenta (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  All suggestions addressed above. Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just the refs near the quotation needed now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Esculenta (talk) 18:28, 17 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.