Talk:Hypotrachyna catawbiensis

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 18:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypotrachyna catawbiensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 03:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and review this. — Anonymous 03:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Good coverage, stable, no copyright issues (including for images), etc. However, I see a few instances of awkward wording and some other small issues. I've complied a list.

• WP:LEADCITE

• The fact and its citation have been moved down to taxonomy. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Most jargon is defined, but "medulla" isn't.

• I've moved the gloss ("inner layer") up earlier to its first mention. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• The lichen was first formally described as new to science... Quite awkward; "the lichen was first described" should suffice.

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• In 1981, William and Chicita Culberson transferred the species to Cetrariastrum when they determined that Everniastrum—the genus in which it was previously placed—was nomenclaturally invalid. This is the first the reader ever hears of Everniastrum; it should probably be mentioned earlier.

• Good catch! I added the missing bit of taxonomic chronology. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Sensu lato" should probably be in italics.

• Yes, done. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• The lichen is commonly known as the "antler-tipped powder lichen". According to the lead, it's actually the powder-tipped antler lichen. Also, this sentence is currently orphaned in its own paragraph.

• Sheesh! I 'lol'ed when I realised I had written that! Fixed. I've also added a sentence about the etymology of the species epithet so the naming sentence isn't so lonely. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Finally, in 2013, Pradeep Divakar and colleagues... I feel like "however" makes more sense as a transition in this context.

• Sure, done. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• The four paragraphs in description could probably be condensed to three (perhaps two).

  I'm comfortable with the current paragraph distribution, as they all discuss clearly different subtopics. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• The distribution section feels about as scattered as the lichen's range. First, we're told it's found in three southern US states (with altitudes). Next, we're told that its distribution extends to Canada (no altitudes), with no mention of the other US states in between. Then, we're told it occurs in China (with altitudes) and Papua New Guinea (no altitudes). Then the next paragraph proceeds to list additional locations where it is "also" found (including Papua New Guinea a second time) with altitudes.
• In the Southern Appalachian Mountains, it is not rare at high elevations, though never abundant anywhere in its range. Southern doesn't need to be capitalised. Also, the wording is somewhat confusing. Is this supposed to mean that it isn't common anywhere, but it is equally common at high and low elevations?

• I've reorganized this section to groups locations by continent, consistently present elevation data where available, clarify the abundance statement, and fix the capitalization. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Refs 3, 4, 5b, 5c pass spot checks (unfortunately, I couldn't access most sources).

Some minor copy-editing left to do, but the article is close. I'm placing it on hold.

Thanks for reviewing! Responses above, and changes summarized here. Esculenta (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks beautiful now (I did make one slight prose change). I'll go ahead and pass it. — Anonymous 03:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)