Talk:Verrucariaceae

Verrucariaceae 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: February 22, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Fungi: Lichens Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as High-importance).

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, I'll do this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is an admirably thorough and informative article, richly cited. It covers both the taxon's history and its current status well. As such I have only a few comments to make, and they are around the fringes.

For a necessarily technical article, as always I wonder if we could lead in gently in the first paragraph of the lead section. I guess the key points for the uninitiated are that the family is not entirely composed of lichens (better say what the others are, then!); that while most grow on land, some grow in freshwater and some in the sea; some are parasites of other lichens; and one marine species lives with a leafy green alga, remarkable. Maybe some of that could be presented rather simply?
- Added.

The description section does its best with all those horrendous technical terms, with useful glosses. There is definitely scope for a diagram or two of some of the family's structures, for instance to explain "catapyrenioid" - you could show its ascospores compared to more normal ones. Obviously not mandatory.
- To do after GA.

"to be unique enough to warrant inclusion in their own family." Could this be better expressed? Something along the lines of "to be distinctive enough to warrant the creation of their own monotypic families"?
- Fixed.

The caption for the interesting image of Mastodia tesselata should say it's a marine species, and that's a rock in the intertidal zone? (btw is it tesselata or rather tessellata as one would expect?)
- Fixed.

"a crustose, seashore-inhabiting Verrucariaceae": "member of the Verrucariaceae"? "verrucariacean"?
- Fixed.

Few readers will be familiar with the growth forms of the mentioned algae (and Petroderma maculiforme is redlinked...). It might be worth adding brief glosses ("the encrusting marine alga...", "the microscopic multicellular alga...") to give people an idea of what's involved.

Have you got endolith and epilith the wrong way around? Gk. endo = within, epi = upon.
- Fixed.

"1 thousand" -> either "1000" or "one thousand" (or even "a thousand") as you like.
- Fixed.

You are invited to make use of my photo File:Coastal vegetation zones at St Malo.jpg which shows Hydropunctaria maura forming a stripe along the high-tide line, if you'd find it helpful. I'd hesitate to say it but it seems to show a quite distinctive side to the family's ecology rather clearly.
- Added.

Hi Chiswick Chap. I'm a bit worried about Esculenta. They haven't edited since Jan 6, after editing heavily and regularly up to that point. I'm happy to pick this up in early Feb if you don't hear anything from them by then. MeegsC (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC: Yes, me too. Do you have some way of finding if they're well? And yes, it'd be great if you could pick this up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I was able to reach Esculenta via email. As I'd hoped, it's actually just RL commitments getting in the way of Wikipedia for the next few months. I'm happy to take over the shepherding of this one, but I'm currently in Guyana on a work trip and won't have time to get stuck into this until I get home next month. Would you mind waiting a couple of weeks? MeegsC (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, let's do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC: You're back? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap; just got back to the UK last night. I guess Esculenta still isn't back, so I will prioritize this review this coming week. Thanks for your patience! MeegsC (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since nothing here is at all controversial and we seem to be otherwise stuck, I'm boldly going ahead with the proposed changes. Feel free to adjust as desired. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.