Talk:Lobaria pulmonaria

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleLobaria pulmonaria 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 22, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the "lung lichen", species Lobaria pulmonaria, has been used for dyeing, tanning, perfume manufacturing, and brewing?

GA Review

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

Lead:

  • Common names and taxobox clades need referencing.
 Done I've referenced the common names (and added a few more). I'm not sure if the taxobox classification needs to be referenced, as this is common knowledge. You mentioned "clades", but there is no mention of Phylogenetics or cladistics in the article.
  • "and recent research is corroborating the medicinal properties of the lichen." not really true, only the Itailian use, not the good-for-lungs nonsense.
 Done I've reworded slightly, is it ok now? (Note - the lichen has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, ulcer-preventing, and gastroprotective effects, so there is certainly evidence for the statement.

Description:

  • "The asexual reproductive structures soredia and/or isidia may be present on the surface": "may be" is rather vague, and what ref is this from?
 Done

Reproduction:

  • A description of what a fungal meristem is would be helpful, either here or at Meristem.
 Done I took it out completely - it's confusing and somewhat obscure research not required for an A-class article.
  • How are spores dispersed? by air? by animals? by moisture or rain?
 Done I've elaborated about the dispersal of both spores and vegetative propagules.

Photobiont:

  • Cyanobacterial symbiont is mentioned in lead but missing here. Needs to be added.
 Done
  • "It is the division of algae that initiates the perforation of the thallus and the subsequent development of vegetative structures, soredia and isidia." I find this incomprehensible, especially "division". The rest of the section is easy to read either, but it is probably the fault of the second sentence.
 Done Reworded.
  • "cortex", difficult word.
 Done True. I added a brief definition of cortex (as it relates to thallus morphology) in the description.
  • How is the photobiont transmitted from one generation of the fungus to another?
 Done

Distribution and habitat:

  • What factor (e.g. nitrogen, acid rain, shade, SO2, herbivores, needing longliving trees) limit its distribution?
 Done Added paragraph on distribution factors.

Chemical compounds:

  • All cells contain fatty acids, so what is your point with mentioning them?
 Done Good point. Removed.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

  • I can't access most sources, but at a glance they look reliable.
  • No sign of original research

Neutrality:

  • No problem here

No content dispute:

  • Nope, none.

Images:

  • Few but enough (distribution map is always a nice addition). Decent enough description pages.

Placing it on hold. Narayanese (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly better now. Shame about removing the sentence about regeneration though, it was an interesting tidbit (but it didn't belong in the reproduction section) Sorry about clades (appearantly L. pulmonaria isn't necessarily that related to other Lobaria species (http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/3/449)), I meant taxonomic groups, like Fungi and Lobaria in the taxobox. The citation normally goes at the end of the name field.

Various suggestions outside of GA review:

  • Place reference notes after both , and . or before both, not mixed.
 Done
  • Air pollution could be specified, e g acidity and soot ar quite different beasts.
 Done
  • It would be interesting to know if the cyanobacterium is an obligate symbiont for this lichen.
I don't think so, based on the Nostoc article, but I'll dig around and add it if I find a reference.

Narayanese (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: if the taxobox/taxonomy doesn't reflect phylogeny, then the article should say so. Narayanese (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't object to my placement a phylogeny ref in the taxobox, I will pass the article shortly - it looks fine. Narayanese (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object :) I'll read the paper tonight and see if anymore details should be added to the article. Thanks for the GA review. Sasata (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Good luck with with your other articles. (passed GA) Narayanese (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status

Why is the conservation status listed as endangered? Where is it endangered? It may be considered vulnerable in some places, but it certainly isn't endangered in a lot of its range, and I've never heard of this species being red listed anywhere. This needs some clarification and a citation, or it should be removed.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lobaria pulmonaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Lobaria_pulmonaria"