Talk:Enchylium polycarpon

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

Nominator: Xkalponik (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will get to this shortly. —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 28, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:   There are several issues to the article layout:

1. The lead contains pieces of information that do not appear in the main text. For instance, the common name, "shaly jelly lichen", has no record or reference in the main text. An Etymology subsection under the Taxonomy section would be ideal, and if possible it should also include the etymology of the scientific name.
2. The Taxonomy and Distribution sections coincide in some of the information regarding where the lichen is recorded. I suggest separating the information firmly, with the distribution and geographical records going into the Distribution section exclusively, leaving only the taxonomic revision, synonymy and the original publication of the species in the Taxonomy section.
3. Speaking of synonyms, these appear in the taxobox without the necessary formatting. The authority needs to be displayed in smaller text, with perhaps the {{au}} or {{small}} templates, or even the <small></small> code. In addition, it is heavily encouraged that published peer-reviewed sources are used to justify putting those synonyms in the article. Taxonomic databases are not sufficiently reliable by themselves.

2. Verifiable?:   No plagiarism detected through Earwig's tool. However, all the references are incorrectly formatted or non-reliable. Two of the four notes appear to be attempts at references. Some refs lack any {{citation}} template entirely. Others that use {{cite web}} templates, titled "Altitudinal distribution (6 states)", "Poleotolerance" and such, link to nearly empty websites that have no relation to the lichen species, and thus cannot be used as valid references. In addition, only one reference uses the {{cite book}} template, and links to an archive.org item that apparently does not even exist, or at least has no author, date or ISBN, therefore it is not an existing book. Last but not least, no peer-reviewed scientific articles are used as references. Taxonomic databases and information systems are not sufficient alone to sustain the entirety of an article this large.

3. Broad in coverage?:   Pass

4. Neutral point of view?:   Pass

5. Stable?:   Pass

6. Images?:   Pass

The article has layout issues, but the more concerning issues are with the references. Solely from the state of the references, the article fails two of the five GA criteria, which results in an immediate failure. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns or doubts you may have about the nomination and the reference formatting that is required for WP:TOL articles.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. —Snoteleks (Talk) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Snoteleks, Hi. Thanks for the review. I'll address and fix each issue promptly. However, there seems to be a misjudgment. Others that use cite web templates, titled "Altitudinal distribution (6 states)", "Poleotolerance" and such, link to nearly empty websites that have no relation to the lichen species, and thus cannot be used as valid references..
FYI, these are indeed related to the lichen species. These show the values of these chemical tests and interpret what value means. The values are mentioned in the parent source^[1]. At the end of each value data, they link to "info" which opens a new tab. I used those individual info tabs as sources instead.

Another thing is, In addition, only one reference uses the cite book template, and links to an archive.org item that apparently does not even exist, or at least has no author, date or ISBN, therefore it is not an existing book.

These are actually herbarium data CSV files. The wiki reference converter made the error using the book template. I'd fix that.

Last but not least, no peer-reviewed scientific articles are used as references. Taxonomic databases and information systems are not sufficient alone to sustain the entirety of an article this large.

While I do not disagree with this, though I'd like to mention that the ITALIC or similar databases used in the article are widely used in scientific peer-reviewed journals themselves. Also, the different herbarium data used are no exception. However, I'll go on to add multiple more peer-reviewed references.

The lead contains pieces of information that do not appear in the main text. For instance, the common name, "shaly jelly lichen", has no record or reference in the main text. It did actually. In the taxonomic revision sub-section. However, I've moved it to the etymology section now,

Thanks for the overall review. I've had my first GA recently and this was my second nomination. I'd do everything on my part to fix the addressed issues and make it pass as well. Regards. X (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Snoteleks. I have made all the corrections you've pointed and renominated it. X (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Wolverine XI, Hi, I was away from Wiki for a bit and I'm back now. I've made the adjustments to the article that you suggested in the last nom, and have renominated it. Please have a look. Thanks. X (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply