Talk:Lecideaceae

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 12:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Placing my spot. Wolverine XI ^{(den • 🐾)} 12:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! Esculenta (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting review shortly; sorry for the wait. Wolverine XI ^{(den • 🐾)} 13:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

• Please remove "the" as the first word of the lead

• It's a correct construction, see WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please remove the information in the bracket as it's already provided in the Infobox

• Ok. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• It contains about 30 genera about roughly 250 species. Redundancy

• Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• A major distinguishing characteristic of the family is the lecanoroid form of the fruiting bodies: typically circular, dark, and without a thalline margin. A colon is grammatically wrong here.

• Nope, the colon is grammatically correct; it is used here to introduce a list or an explanation that directly follows a complete clause. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Esculenta: No, a comma is needed here. Please use ChatGPT or another tool to verify your grammar. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Have already used it to establish that I'm correct. Esculenta (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, but I still think you're wrong. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• are lichenicolous–they live on other lichens. Lecideaceae lichens tend to grow on rocks, wood, and soil. We need a longer em-dash

• Well, we don't need it, as en- and em-dashes are interchangeable for this use, but I like em dashes anyways so I swapped for one here. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think a second paragraph in the lead would be helpful

• Sure, done. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• his influential 1753 treatise Species Plantarum. Remove influential

• I'm claiming WP:BLUESKY here, as Species Plantarum is simply the most influential botanical work that exists, and I don't think it's inappropriate to append this word, even in Wiki-voice. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please don't describe author's work as influential

• Zahlbruckner's work is similarly influential in lichenology, but admittedly less known-well outside these circles, so in the spirit of compromise I've removed the word. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ref bomb in Classification

• Defused the bomb by bundling the citations. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Can you expand chemistry ditto Habitat, distribution, and ecology

• That's a great idea and I have done so. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please improve the IUCN citation, as it's missing information

• Not sure what to do with them as I'm using the standard template:Cite IUCN template. I had another article with fuller IUCN citations, but someone else came along and replaced them with these templates, so probably the citations need to be improved at the template level. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: Extremely sorry for the wait; I'm now done with the review. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look; my changes can be seen here. Esculenta (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (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.

GA Reassessment

Lecideaceae

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

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) 02:14, 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. Silverseren^C 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)