Talk:Buellia frigida
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Buellia frigida 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 21, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Antarctic lichen Buellia frigida has been to outer space? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Buellia frigida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Looks good to me. A few comments to follow. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for having a look, I appreciate it. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Images fine.
- "The type specimen were collected" singular/plural
- Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- "they were found growing on tuff. This and" Ditto
- Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reference for the diagnosis? Whose translation? (I.e., is it a public domain translation?) I note that the MOS is generally not keen on wikilinks in quotes, but I don't mind them.
- It's a GPT4-assisted translation. Yep, it's a machine translation/LLM (and I understand the caveats at the now quite-outdated advice at WP:MACHINE), but from my own experience (i.e. years of reading original Latin descriptions), it's a quite good translation. I read WP:HOWTRANS, but am unclear how to acknowledge the GPT translation, or if it's required. Any ideas? Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why don't you list all synonyms in the taxobox?
- Added the missing MacKenzie suggested synonym to the taxobox. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- "isodiametric" is undefined jargon
- Now defined in text. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- "septate" and "septum", too.
- Now linked and defined in text. Esculenta (talk)
- It's a bit odd to have two separate ecology sections?
- It sure is! The second "ecology" section is now more appropriately named "Physiological adaptations and growth"
- "irradiance" also a bit jargony
- Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Some inconsistency on use of -ise and -ize. Both are acceptable in British English; just aim for consistency.
- Changed to "ise" throughout. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
More to come... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- "in some damage to the lichen symbionts" Which? Algal?
- Rewrote and hopefully clarified this text. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- "these experiments provide essential insights" This is a nice example of some slight wordiness; it borders on editorialising. I suspect the writing could be a little smoother in places. (Some of the ecological information felt a little repetitive, for instance -- but perhaps that will be filtered out if you manage to restructure things a little to avoid multiple ecology sections.) I suspect the writing falls short of the brilliant prose called for at FAC, but I appreciate that the article isn't currently at FAC!
- "emphasizing the intricate nature of lichen adaptation to non-terrestrial environments" Ditto on the edititorialising. I don't think these are the only examples.
- Thanks for this; I've gone through the article again and reduced examples of this that I could spot. I may try FAC for this article in the future, so please point out any more places you see where the prose could be tightened. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe this is just my ignorance, but I don't really know what "genetic integrity" means in this context.
- I reworded to remove this phrase entirely; let me know if the new text is better. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Looking again:
- I think you should probably acknowledge that the translation is ChatGPT-assisted. Maybe a footnote.
- Done. Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- "to grow in seasonally inundated habitats" Inundated with what?
- Water – reworded to clarify. Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- No biggie for GA purposes, but I might like to hear a bit more about the species of birds referred to in the ecology section.
- The only extra info the source had was that the birds are mostly petrels, so I added that. Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I confess I'm still struggling with the final paragraph, but that may be my problem.
- I redid the final two paragraphs; any better? Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Other than that, I don't have much to add! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your helpful suggestions. Esculenta (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- This article is looking great, and I'm now very happy to promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
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 Bruxton talk 15:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Antarctic lichen Buellia frigida has been to outer space? Source: Backhaus et al. (2019). "DNA damage of the lichen Buellia frigida after 1.5 years in space using Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) technique" doi:10.1016/j.pss.2019.07.002
- ALT1: ... that the outer space visitor Buellia frigida grows less than 1 mm (1⁄32 in) per century? Source: doi:10.1016/j.flora.2007.05.005
- ALT2: ... that some individuals of the outer space visitor Buellia frigida have survived for more than a millennium? Source: same source as ALT1
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Royal necropolis of Byblos
- Comment: I think I'm still on the "freebie" DYK noms (let me know if I'm wrong or that's no longer a thing). Esculenta (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Created by Esculenta (talk). Self-nominated at 21:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Buellia frigida; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Article GA new enough and article long enough. Checking ref now. This will be nomination 6, so I do believe QPQ needs will kick in now.--Kevmin § 16:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Article long enough and good enough, hooks cited and sourced. Regarding hook Alt2, am i right in associating it with the source estimate of possibly a 7000 year age?. The QPQ may work, though the age of it and that it was failed out before full review migh be considered problematic by nom promoters.--Kevmin § 19:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Re: Alt2, yes. I swapped out for another QPQ (also old, but performed during the "QPQ not required" stage) that had a full review. Esculenta (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Everything is looking good at this stage. No policy issues seen in the article, no copyvio or close paraphrasing with the prose. I lean towards Alt0 or Alt1 as first selections for use. Good to go.--Kevmin § 19:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I moved one citation to comply with WP:DYKCRIT. Also Earwig is not working for me today: it came up zero but it is buggy for me. Bruxton (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Buellia frigida
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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Stale conversation. Users haven't produced items to delist outside of use of LLMs. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I am far from an advocate of LLMs as writing aids, and wouldn't use them to help write an article in the way the author did. But I'm sympathetic to Silver seren's perspective: is there any indication that there are problems with the article? I spent a good bit of time with the article before and during the review and thought it was of a high quality. This included rooting out some problems low-level problems fairly typical of LLM-generated content, as well as encouraging the author to be open about the use of ChatGPT (see my review). It's entirely possible I've missed something; e.g., maybe I should have done more source spotchecking. If there are problems, I'm happy to help fix them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm going to close as retain. I don't have any specific views on the discussion, and if issues are found with the material of the article, I hold no prejudice against this being reopned. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 June 2026 (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.