Talk:Confluentic acid

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Confluentic acid/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 18:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to be reviewing this article. I've given it an initial read-through and it's presented well; will work through the GA criteria over the course of the evening.

@Esculenta: Notifying you that I'm working on this. Reconrabbit 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing checks

• [1] [2] [4] [6] [7] [10] I don't have access to these sources.
• [3] [5] I don't have access to the full text but can see supporting evidence for the claims based on the abstracts.
• [8] Y but not a particularly strong source.
• [9] Y
• [12] Y for both uses
• [14] Y They must have some insanely advanced instrumentation to get data that looks that clean.
• [19] Y

Comments

• Y Addressed The leading paragraph states that the compound plays a role in distinguishing between species in the genus Porpidia. It may be useful to demonstrate the similarity through an image of these lichens, since it comes up multiple times in the article.

• I did add an image of one of the Porpidia species mentioned; unfortunately, I was unable to find a free version of its lookalike to show a side-by-side comparison.Esculenta (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunate, but it does help. The positioning leads to a borderline
  WP:SANDWICH situation, but it looks okay in my resolution. Reconrabbit 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Added a couple of sentences to address this shortcoming. Esculenta (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Y "The temporal variation of secondary metabolites in the mycobiont culture and thallus of Parmelina carporrhizans and Parmelina quercina analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography" is a primary research article from a MDPI publication; I haven't reviewed every source yet but this one is tendentious.

• Yeah, I agree that the source is borderline, but the statement it's sourced to isn't particularly revolutionary, and I'm not planning to take this article further to FAC. Esculenta (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to say, just cut out this sentence, since it doesn't serve the article much on its own anyway unless we end up with some other major paper on P. carporrhizans as a source for this metabolite that warrants its inclusion. Reconrabbit 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I prefer to keep it, as it offers clues about the biosynthetic necessity of metabolite production. A recurring question in lichen metabolite research is if the fungal mycobiont will produce a given chemical without any influence from the photobiont. In this case, a group (one of whom is an Acharius Medal recipient) has done the preliminary experiments, and shown that the answer is yes. I don't think it helps the readers to hold back this little bit of fundamental information because they unfortunately published in an MDPI publication. It's open access, so an interested reader can visit the article and make their own judgements rather than us censoring the information. Esculenta (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. This isn't a FAC. Reconrabbit 05:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Addressed In 1993, G. Fegie and colleagues introduced a standardised high-performance liquid chromatographic that enabled the separation... Is this supposed to be "chromatographic method"?

• Yes, fixed. Esculenta (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Addressed Listing every absorbance peak is not particularly useful and is not done on any other article as far as I can see. Recommend cutting this to only the important peaks if it needs to be kept.

• Trimmed the list as suggested. Esculenta (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thanks for reviewing this article, I appreciate your time. My changes can be seen here. Esculenta (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the quality of the sources I can access, and the fact that you've created the article from nothing, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the rest of the sources. Additionally, I'm not seeing any applications, occurences or other major information that are missing from a brief search. Reconrabbit 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]