Talk:Punctelia hypoleucites

Punctelia hypoleucites 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: May 29, 2021. (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
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:Punctelia hypoleucites/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll have a look soon. At first glance, there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I cleaned up the duplinks. Esculenta (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"were collected in Pico de Orizaba, Veracruz" You could mention the country here too.
"The smaller one of them of them " Double them.
You only present some people mentioned with occupation and nationality, should be consistent.

For this one I now give occupation and nationality for only the initial describer. Esculenta (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some terms are hard to understand even when linked, so though I don't like to "enforce" this, maybe they could be explained somehow ion parenthesis? For example "and lacks conidia and apothecia".
Terms linked and explained in the intro should also be linked (and perhaps explained again) in the article body.
Lichen could also be linked at first mention outside the intro.
Such terms should also be linked in image captions.
"Hildur Krog transferred" You should only need to give last name after first mention of the full name?
"Later, P. semansiana was found to be identical with P. graminicola." Would it be relevant to mention when and by who?

I think I've taken care of your concerns in this edit, but am happy to further explain the jargon if you see spots that need it. Esculenta (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link and explain "foliose" outside the intro too.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"propagules such as soralia nor isidia" Explanations?

I reworded "propagule" to "asexual reproductive structure" which I think should be sufficient context for understanding what the next two terms are (don't really want to gloss terms for structures that aren't actually present). Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain terms like medulla, sessile, hymenium, ascospores, in the article body?

Did all but ascospores (I think this is more or less self-explanatory as a type of spore). Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does the specific name mean?

I put together an explanation from another source that I hope isn't too OR-ish (Nylander didn't state explicitly what the epithet meant although it can be implied from his original description). Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The distribution seems very random, the Americas and Africa, any theories of how this came to be?

I recall reading some theorizing about the disjunct pan-tropical distribution for some other Punctelia species, but not about this one in particular. Someday I will get around to adding the information to the genus article. Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this UK or US English? You use inconsistent spellings, both color and colour.

Went with US spelling. Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit unbalanced that you go into so much detail about which Mexican states it is found in when this is not done with other countries mentioned.

Well, I used a source that was heavily detailed about Mexican distribution. Added a bit more about US distribution for hopefully better balance. Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this looks very good now, with the caveat that I know nothing about lichens (apart from what I now know from reading the article), so will promote now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]