# Talk:Peltigera cinnamomea

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peltigera cinnamomea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 04:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look soon. At first glance, there are some WP:duplinks in the taxonomy section, which can be highlighted with this[1] script. FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Duplinks removed. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Might be good with a caption for the infobox image to tell what we're seeing?
Explanatory caption added. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Kind of unusual the range map only shows the location of the holotype, there are no maps that show general distribution?
Not without me making one, but that's a process I haven't learned. I figured showing the type locality would be better than nothing, as it gives the reader a general idea of where the species is found. Actually, the GBIF occurrence map isn't bad, and I'm vaguely aware there's a process to take this occurrence data and convert it onto a blank map, but it's not in my skill set. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
If there is a reference map, it can be requested at the WP:graphics lab. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I queried a knowledgeable fellow editor about getting the GBIF range map, so that might end up in the article soon. Still not completely confident about making/getting a map made–do I use a provincial/state approximate but less accurate distribution or do I map out individual points of validated collections? The lichen task force hasn't yet hashed out desired range map standards, so hopefully GBIF map can fill in until then. Esculenta (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Sounds nice, and if we want to show both range and type location, that should be possible in a single map. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The text mentions molecular phylogenetics studies, any cladograms to show?
I don't think it's warranted here ... the study is more than 20 years old now, and their cladogram shows closest similarity with 3 other Peltigera species that were all invalidly published. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Since you do mention the study, you could add the year of it, to indicate the context you give here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Year added. Esculenta (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Link lichenologist and taxon.
Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
"The species was first scientifically documented in a 1994" By who, the same author? And under the same name? Should be specified.
Added. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Explain unfamiliar terms like monophyletic, mesophytic, subhygrophytic, species pair, thallus, foliose, medulla, ascus, photobiont, etc.
Explanations for all of these added. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
"meamning" stray M.
Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
If it's so widespread, how come it was described so recently? Perhaps related to "Peltigera cinnamomea is often recognisable in its natural habitat but was frequently misidentified as Peltigera praetextata in taxonomic classifications"? In that case, could be stated clearly in the taxonomy section.
Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
"It shares similar lobe widths of 1.5–3 cm" You give unit conversions elsewhere.
Added cvt. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Why not simplify to P.cinnamomea after first mention? You spell out the entire name in most instances, which seems unnecessary.
I avoid the abbreviated form when beginning paragraphs or sentences, but have trimmed the other instances. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
You mention lobe and lobule, explain the difference?
Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
"commonly known as the dog pelt or cinnamon-pelt lichen" But what name is more prevalent? From the article, it seems the former name was only used in one publication?
I hesitate to make an explicit statement on prevalence, but you're correct, the former name is not so "common", so I removed it from the lead. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Any reason why the subject order in the intro doesn't follow the section order of the article body? For example description after taxonomy.
No particular reason, but afaik, mirroring the presentation of material isn't even suggested in wp:LEAD. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The latter part of the article is pretty bare, no additional interesting images to show?
Added another photo. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful suggestions FunkMonk. My changes are these. Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixes look good, I've added two comments above (which won't hold it back). FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and promote now, will of course be nice if the range map becomes available. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)