Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Outline of lichens/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Outline of lichens[edit]

Outline of lichens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm testing the waters a bit, because regulars here tell me that no outline has yet reached FL status. I'm hoping to change that, and to get the first featured list for our relatively new lichen task force. As well as informing our readers, this outline is helping us to figure out what articles we still need to create. It's all referenced, but I am wondering whether the lead should be in outline form (as suggested in the outline documentation) or a full lead (as suggested by the FL criteria). Open to suggestions, and looking forward to hearing what others think. MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK
  • Alright, not really sure how to review an outline, but I'll have a stab at this.
  • This looks pretty comprehensive and doesn't really have much prose to review, so pretty close to a support; my only comments are that the images all need alt text and that the spot test image could use the more descriptive caption present at the article to better contextualize what's going on. AryKun (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AryKun! I'll get those sorted ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun, I've made the changes you suggested. Can you please have a look and tell me if they meet your approval? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, support on prose. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

Doesn't look like there's any prose issues, so I'll do a source review- no spotcheck, just looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 26 needs page number; ditto 44, 46, 54, 55, 56
  • What's ref 60 pointing to? As far as I can see in the "References" section, there's no British Lichen Society 2022a
I'm not sure why that wasn't working. I had a "ref=" parameter that had the same name as one of the article subsections, and for whatever reason, it was going to that subsection instead of the reference! I changed the ref name and it's working now. (The ref was already there.) MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kraichak 2018a: no doi? No JSTOR? Not even an SC2ID? If none apply, I'd be surprised if there were no webpage available
Added DOI, S2CID and Researchgate link. MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC - That's all from me, nice work on the prose. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk! I'll work on fixing these and will let you know when I'm done. MeegsC (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MeegsC, any update? AryKun (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry AryKun! I've just spent a month in the field and got back late last night. I plan to finish this up in the next few days. MeegsC (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun and MyCatIsAChonk, I've added page numbers for all but ref 56. The online version I used before is now offline, so I'm trying to find someone with access to it who can help me determine that number. Will let you know as soon as I can! Does everything else look okay? MeegsC (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looking good so far, thanks for the notif! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay MyCatIsAChonk and AryKun, I've finished adding page numbers for all refs that have them (i.e. everything other than websites). Anything else? MeegsC (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilverTiger

I was ignoring this FLC for weeks because I've never read an outline before... then I read this one, and loved it. It's a comprehensive guide of where to find most of the articles about lichen, arranged into a carefully curated half-list, half-article. So now I have some comments.

  • First off, given the definition-style lede, it might be worthwhile to add the pronunciation of lichen there too.
  • The "What is a lichen?" section is confusing- it doesn't really explain, and for some reason it drills down to family level when lichen are apparently multiple classes.
    • SilverTiger12, I've tried to expand this a bit to better explain. Does this help? Or do I need to add more?
      • Yes, it makes much more sense now that you've explained which bionts fall where. Thank you.
  • Nature of lichens/Morphology: these are very technical terms, not very accessible to a layperson. Please read through this section again and consider if anything can be phrased more clearly, a little less technical/jargon-y.
    • There's a template {{Plural form}}, please implement that in the morphology section.
      I didn't know about that template! Thanks for that.
  • Periods. Please put these at the ends of the various definitions (not just in the morphology section_; the current usage is inconsistent.
  • There are some lists of lichen species by genus; I request that you link to these in the Genera subsection. I.e. 468. Lecanora (list)
    What a great idea! Done.
  • Species subsection - is there no more recent source for the number of lichen species than 2009?
  • Growth forms: calicioid, and cladoniform are listed here as subtypes, but the main article indicates the situation is more complicated than that. Meanwhile on the main article, I was confused when areolate and placodioid appeared to be treated as types rather than subtypes (though that is out of the scope of this FLC).
    Yeah, a lot of that section (and the lichen article in general!) needs cleaning up. Lichen growth forms is more recent and comprehensive.
  • Lichens by substrate: I'm a bit confused by the pattern of type and subtype here: Is endophloeodal the umbrella for all plant-tissue-dwelling lichens, and thus, would not bryophilous, corticolous, foliicolous, and lignicolous be subtypes of it?
    • Please clarify that lignifcolous grow on wood stripped of bark.
    • Why is ramicolous the only direct subtype of endophloeodal? By the limited definitions given, it'd be a subtype of corticolous.
      I've removed endophloedal as a separate list item, per comment below; it can be added as a subsection in several appropriate articles (orticolous, foliicolous, ramicolous, etc.). It had been indented incorrectly, and should have been on the same level as "ramicolous".
    • Please change omnicolous' definition to capable of growing on multiple types of substrates and I question whether a blanket statement that all omnicolous lichen can grow on manmade structures is necessary and necessarily accurate.
      • I've changed this to on a variety of substrates. Does that suffice?
        • Yes, that works.
  • Not really part of this FLC, but three of the lists of lichen by location are missing the "List of.." from their titles, leading to minorly annoying inconsistencies.
    I've moved two of the articles to "List of..." titles. The third (Lichens of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.)) isn't currently a list, so I didn't move that one.
  • Is Fossil lichens intended to one day be a list of fossil lichens? Because if so, change to List of fossil lichens.
  • I recommend changing the redlinked Lichens in popular culture to Cultural depictions of lichens (or another title more appropriate); "in popular culture" articles tend to be magnets for cruft and are implicitly biased towards recent/modern culture. If it isn't depictions so much as uses, then uses of lichens.
  • Is "Trouble with Lichen" really that relevant to the topic of lichen as a whole? Either way, book titles should be italicized.

And that's all for now. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two further notes after doing some digging:

  • It looks like, back in August on the lichen task force's talk page, the completeness of the list of lichen genera was questioned. Has this been rectified?
  • There's a list of common names of lichen genera that isn't listed anywhere on this outline, and should be.

Now that should be all. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SilverTiger12! I'll get working on these, and will strike out what I've completed. MeegsC (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to your queries above, and overall I believe this outline has improved. My only remaining concern is the one Esculenta, actually, raised about the completeness of the list of lichen genera. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Since my concerns about the genera list's comprehensiveness have essentially been addressed (below), I am going to go ahead and Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comments from Esculenta
  • I suggest that Endophloeodal lichen doesn't need a redlink, and a link to the glossary definition will suffice for Wikipedia; at most, maybe a separate section in the article corticolous lichen. A Google Scholar search of the term (enclosed in quotes) brings 0 hits, while without quotes, it's less than a couple of hundred–typically mentions of the word used as a descriptive term in lichen descriptions. Esculenta (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Esculenta:, since you were the one who previously raised this concern- is the list of lichen genera in this outline up-to-date in your opinion? I don't really know how to go about checking. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's probably very close! MeegsC has added many genera since I mentioned this; the only way I could know for sure is to spend several hours comparing the genus list in the outline to the set {Category:Lichen genera + redlinked genera in family articles} (which I'm sure MeegsC has already done). Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still working on checking, with another couple of years to go. I plan to be done by the end of the weekend. MeegsC (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I think I've finally finished – though undoubtedly I'll stumble across a few more as we clean up various lichen family articles over the coming months and years. MeegsC (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review – All of the images used in the article appear to have appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Outline_of_lichens/archive1&oldid=1182549983"