# Talk:Lecanora albellula

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lecanora albellula/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 15:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 15:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Esculenta, happy to see another batch of GANs from you. I'll be reviewing this one.


### Spotcheck
Reference 3: I don't know Latin, but I can definitely see the information is accurate.
Reference 15: accurate information, the original source mentions plenty of times the abundance of L. albellula in forest edges, and even provides an abundancy table.
Reference 11: accurate information, essentially the entire taxonomic key summarized into a paragraph, although see comments outside of GAN below.


### First look
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Everything is written excellently.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Not sure if there's a Wikipedia policy against the use of inclusive second-person as in Research has refined our understanding of, but it sounds alright to me. The use of the word prescient (first paragraph of the Taxonomy section) sounds a bit too fancy to me, but as a non-native English speaker I'm probably in the wrong. However, given the existence of a 'simple English Wikipedia', maybe it's worth considering.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
I really like that you took enough care even to provide common names of trees in the Habitat section.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Suggestions outside of this GAN
Despite being mentioned plenty of times elsewhere, Lecanora saligna is the one species that is missing a morphological differentiation in the Similar species section. Its addition would probably benefit the article.


### Conclusion
There's not much else to say. I wish I could read German to check the German references, but I fully trust that they are appropriately used, just like the remaining references. Anyways, @Esculenta: congratulations on your new GA! — Snoteleks (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

A very pleasant Sunday afternoon surprise ...thanks for reviewing! Esculenta (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)