Talk:Punctelia graminicola

Punctelia graminicola 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 4, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Punctelia graminicola appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 May 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that decades after the type specimen of the lichen Punctelia graminicola was destroyed in World War II, its original name was restored after another specimen was rescued from disposal at a dump?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Punctelia graminicola.

Wikipedia

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

Reviewer: Hughesdarren (talk · contribs) 03:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: This is my second review, and I'm not an expert in this area although I do have a Science degree. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no citations at all in the lead, while the points in the lead are in the body of the article and appear to be referenced there it just looks unusual to me. Also does not violate MOS:LEAD. What do you think?

I think it generally complies with the standard expectations for leads. AFAIK, lead citations are only necessary for quotes and contentious material that is likely to be challenged, neither of which applies here. Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, just a comment. Had to check the MOS myself. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead says in North America, South America and East Africa. Should these be linked? Is this all the same sort of climatic region like tropical or subtropical? Is this worthy of mention?

The sources don't generalize a climatic region preference for this species, so I'm reluctant to do so. MOS:OVERLINK says to not link generally well-known locations. Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thought I'd ask. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the type specimen being lost in Dunkirk is fascinating, especially since WWII was in full swing then.

I thought so too! Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead says a couple of year later, would saying In 1982 be better?

There I'm deliberately trying to avoid the "In year" construction, as I tend to overuse it! Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, me too probably. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the samples being recovered from landfill is also fascinating. This species has quite a history.

Some tangentially relevant info is available at Maurice Bouly de Lesdain. Esculenta (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another intersting article of yours. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the taxonomy section it says the species was first formally described as Parmelia graminicola in 1942, but the year in the taxobox for that name is 1959 (which agrees with reference 1). Then is reference 6 it says 1942?? Am I missing something here or is one incorrect?

I missed this before, so thanks for finding it! The 1959 date is an error, and I will send off an email to Index Fungorum to alert them. Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, glad to help. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the taxonomy section the gramini- part of the species name is explained, does the -cola part mean anything?

Found the answer and added. Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Tidies the name up nicely. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the description section it says "The upper thallus surface is blue-grey, often with brown margins" but reference 6 says "Thallus greenish gray or brownish in herbarium".

I've added these extra details to the description. Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

paraplenctenchymatou is a nice piece of jargon, thanks for the inline explanation.

In the description section (according to reference 13) the epicortex is 3-7 cells thick, made up of two layers. This is not mentioned in the article. Do you think it is worth mentioning at least to explain why it is easily ruptured? I found this part interesting (as a layman).

Sure, I've added some details. Esculenta (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the description section should "They produce conidia that are usually like short, translucent rods measuring 5–6 by 1 μm" read as "They produce conidia that are usually like short, translucent rods having a length of 5-6μm and a width of 1 μm" This how I'm interpreting it.

I've changed to your wording, which says the same thing and is clearer. Esculenta (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph is the description the comparison is made between P. graminicola and P. hypoleucites. In reference 13 the species is compared with P. colombiana. P. roseola and others. Is there any reason none of these comparisons are made?

I think adding anatomical differences between these species (determinable only by an expert with a microscope) could be veering a bit too far into specialist territory. Esculenta (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the rest of the description is from reference 12. But some of what is written is confirmed by reference 6. (This mostly a note to self - I imagine there is no online copy of Lichens of Mexico. The Parmeliaceae – Keys, distribution and specimen descriptions?)

Actually, there are sample pages from this book available as a PDF from here, and helpfully, it includes the description of this species. Esculenta (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did google it but couldn't immediately see anything. Thanks for that. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The habitat and distribution are all from printed texts. Reference 2 and 4 confirm the presence in Africa and N. America. Is there any more information on habitat that could be added like does is occur in forests or grassland or something. Does this species prefer any kind of rock type?

~~Couldn't find anything more to add about habitat, but~~ I did find list of rocks it has been recorded growing on, so that has been added. Esculenta (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the 1980 Culberson paper again and found some choice tidbits to add about habitat. Esculenta (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again this question will display my complete ignorance of the topic and I'm only asking our of curiosity. Does this lichen have any uses, does it play any part in chemical weathering of rocks, is it used as a food source by anything else in the ecosystem?

I'm sure it does have use as a food source by some types of animals (many lichens are), but there haven't been any studies (to my knowledge) that investigate this. As a saxicolous lichen, it probably does have some slight effect on rock weathering, but not to the extent that it is discussed in sources. Esculenta (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, thought I'd ask. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for all of your prompt and candid responses. Great job on the article and congratulations. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! Esculenta (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It is quite easy to read even for a layman. There is some jargon but is all linked. Spelling and grammar is all correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows WP:MOS with a compliant layout and style. Additional note about lead in comments above.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Full list of sources with appropriate layout.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Nearly all citations are scientific journals that are appropriate for the topic. The citations follow the preferred format.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All the information checked against sources was backed up. No instance of OR could be found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No evidence of copyright violation. Earwig gives Violation Unlikely 0.0%
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is sound overall explanation of the description, taxonomy and distribution of this species.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Does not stay from the species being discussed
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Completely objective as expected for a species of lichen
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Created just over a year ago, with not many edits made since other than by the creator.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Both photos correctly tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both photos are captioned and relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Complies with all attributes. Good for GA status

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that decades after a specimen of the lichen Punctelia graminicola was destroyed in WWII, its original name was restored after another specimen was rescued from disposal at a dump? Source: Egan, Robert S. (2003). "What is the lichen Parmelia graminicola B. de Lesd.?". The Bryologist. 106 (2): 314–316. doi:10.1639/0007-2745(2003)106[0314:WITLPG]2.0.CO;2.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Warring Kennedy

Improved to Good Article status by Esculenta (talk). Self-nominated at 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The article is being submitted after Good Article approval, which was done on May 4th and this was submitted on the same day, so is new enough. Obviously long enough with its status, along with meeting neutrality and proper citation and paraphrasing requirements. The hook is very interesting, cited inline, and has no copyvio issues. The QPQ has been done and there's no image to review. Looks good to go! Silver seren^C 22:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]