User talk:Esculenta

New article on ITCER

Dear Esculenta, perhaps you remember me, because you supported me with the editing of two WP articles, i.e. "Exsiccata" and "IndExs – Index of Exsiccatae".

I just made a draft article on the NGO ITCER in Kenya and I am unsure whether it meets all Wikipedia rules. Could you please help me having a look on the draft version in my sandbox? Or do I have to publish the draft article at first in the regular space of Wikipedia to be visible for all?

Best wishes

TD TriebelD (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Unfortunately, I think your draft would have difficulty surviving the mainspace because of its sourcing. There's simply not enough independent WP:secondary sources that discuss this organisation in detail for it to pass the Wikipedia notability bar. The cited ITCER webpages will not count towards its notability, and the cited journal articles seems to be only brief mentions of the organisation (see WP:SIGCOV). If you're determined to get the article on Wikipedia, my recommendation would be to publish an article or two (in reliable sources) about the organisation's activities, and then use those published articles to improve the sourcing. The draft will remain in draftspace indefinitely (as long as it gets edited at least once every six months). Esculenta (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

in the meanwhile I went a step further and published the draft under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TriebelD/International_Training_Centre_for_Environmental_Research. But I am very glad about your estimation, especially concerning the notability. I will pass the estimation to ITCER and recommend to them to publish one or two articles in reliable sources. Thanks a lot! TriebelD (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for feedback on my first moss article

Howdy, and happy New Year! I've recently made my first foray into botany species articles with Coscinodon lawianus. I was unable to find any bryophyte GAs or FAs, so I didn't have much to go on beyond your lichens. I figured you would be a great person to ask to look over to see if I did everything correctly - you don't have to do a full GAN review of course, but I just want to make sure there isnt anything glaringly incorrect. Thank you very much for your time, and for your great work on lichenology articles! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've recently expanded several bryophyte articles as part the WP:PLANTS Stub to Start drive, so I do have some passing familiarity with this group. Quick feedback:

what's up with the genus page, which doesn't even mention this species?
check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template to see the project-recommended article outlay (e.g., they prefer "Description" before "Taxonomy" (not titled "Classification")
should include a citation to World Flora Online for the synonymy in the "synonyms_ref" parameter of the taxobox (it's the preferred database source for bryophytes)
there's a couple of sentences in Description that are really "Habitat"
dioicous and monoicous (rather than dioecious/monoecious) are the terms usually used for gametophytes of non-vascular plants
should check for any additional jargon terms that could be linked to the Glossary of botanical terms via the handy {{plantgloss}} template
the literature could be mined a bit more for tidbits of info; e.g., "[the moss] is home to extensive mite colonies and other microinvertebrates living in the soil" from here; Coscinodon lawianus is one of the most common mosses in the Larsemann Hills from doi:10.31111/nsnr/2015.49.360; doi:10.1007/s00300-012-1257-5 this source might have something to say about regional biogeography of the species

But there's not really a lot of literature about this taxon, so the article already seems pretty comprehensive. A few tweaks and it should be in GA-zone. Hope this helps! Esculenta (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta, there are a bunch of genus pages created by User:Estopedist1, where the list of species is just the first 2 or 3 (alphabetically) listed on GBIF. These genus pages with incomplete species list are kind of all over the tree of life (but maybe none for vertebrates), but a substantial number of them are bryophytes. I've completed the species list at Coscinodon. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain it! I've noticed that bryophyte representation is pretty weak overall on Wikipedia, with abundant redlinks (even more so than with the lichens). @Generalissima: please write more articles! Esculenta (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thank you very much for your advice and encouragement! I'm usually a history editor, but I might make more frequent bryology detours. It's a shame we have so few editors (relatively) focusing on GAs and FAs in botany. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Melanohalea exasperatula

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Melanohalea exasperatula you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Melanohalea exasperatula

The article Melanohalea exasperatula you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Melanohalea exasperatula for comments about the article, and Talk:Melanohalea exasperatula/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nephroma arcticum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nephroma arcticum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nephroma arcticum

The article Nephroma arcticum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nephroma arcticum and Talk:Nephroma arcticum/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fallacinol

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fallacinol you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fallacinol

The article Fallacinol you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fallacinol for comments about the article, and Talk:Fallacinol/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nephroma arcticum

The article Nephroma arcticum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nephroma arcticum for comments about the article, and Talk:Nephroma arcticum/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hypotrachyna catawbiensis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hypotrachyna catawbiensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hypotrachyna catawbiensis

The article Hypotrachyna catawbiensis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hypotrachyna catawbiensis and Talk:Hypotrachyna catawbiensis/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hypotrachyna catawbiensis

The article Hypotrachyna catawbiensis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hypotrachyna catawbiensis for comments about the article, and Talk:Hypotrachyna catawbiensis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Xanthoria parietina

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Xanthoria parietina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Xanthoria parietina

The article Xanthoria parietina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Xanthoria parietina for comments about the article, and Talk:Xanthoria parietina/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norlichexanthone comment

Hi there, I just saw that you posted that on the draft I had been working on (for a group project) you posted that this was a 'Deep Research' Output by ChatGPT (or similar) and that it needs quite a bit of work before meeting the Wikipedia standards.

I just wanted to inform you that this page was a result of a group project for a toxicology course at university. I believe some of my group members may have used ChatGPT for some help in clarifying language that was written down, but they should not have used it to write the sections or do the actual research. So I was wondering how you came to this conclusion?

In case they used it for more, I would be very worried for the quality of the work the members did, and would like to address it with them.

Thanks in advance! AmyB25 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've extensively been using LLMs since GPT3, and, as part of my work, have used "Deep Research" every day since it was released on Feb 2, so I'm quite familiar what its output looks like. Here are some example "giveaways":

"Further investigations into its mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics could pave the way for future clinical development, particularly in treating infectious diseases and cancer." this is a typical "summative" LLM statement (note it follows after a sourced statement)
"The methyl group looks like that of toluene and may thus also be able to undergo the same reactions, such as oxidation." source doesn't say this, the LLM "surmised" it
"However, these results have not yet been confirmed by either in vitro or in vivo studies. Thus, it cannot be said with complete certainty whether this inhibition will occur." another "summative" statement, typical LLM output
"Recent studies have highlighted the potential of norlichexanthone in preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis and its broader therapeutic applications. ... norlichexanthone effectively mitigates bone loss associated with postmenopausal osteoporosis, presenting a promising alternative to conventional hormone replacement therapies with potentially fewer side effects." It's the LLM way to suggest hypothetical pie-in-the-sky therapies from primary research (and against Wikipedia policies)
the entire "Key Milestones in Norlichexanthone Research and Discovery" table looks like LLM original research (who decided that these papers were "key milestones"?)

There's more subtle clues (with some textual clues I can't differentiate whether its "Deep Research" or just "ChaptGPT" output), but the above are some of the more obvious ones. Having said all of that, I am a fan of the "Deep Research" agent, but its output still needs to be carefully curated before it's useable as Wikipedia text. Esculenta (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply!

I believe that some of the points you mentioned may be the result of reading and often writing similar articles for uni work, with some standard sentence structures we often use when writing articles, as well as the 'pie-in-the-sky' therapy often being seen in a future outlook made in articles :). But it does make sense that we often copy what we have seen work in other cases, or other times you may have had your work 'edited'/'improved' by chatgpt.

But I would love to help this article get better, do you have any advice for me to improve it/on these points? AmyB25 (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reading WP:MEDRS; even though this isn't a medical article, when statements are made about a drug's potential therapeutic uses in human medicine, statements have to be made very carefully. Like these:

" these findings suggest that norlichexanthone could serve as an effective antivirulence agent, potentially enhancing the efficacy of existing antimicrobial treatments."
"norlichexanthone's antioxidant properties underscore its potential as a natural therapeutic agent for various oxidative stress-related conditions."

Consider this paragraph:

"However, norlichexanthone can also be dangerous for human cells due to its cytotoxic properties. They have been specifically demonstrated in the HepG2 cells. In these cells, norlichexanthone increased apoptosis by activating the degradation of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and activation of caspase 3 via cleavage.[24] These two processes contribute to apoptosis via different pathways. PARP degradation leads to the formation of PAR. The formation of this molecule causes a mitochondrial release of apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF), which will then be translocated to the nucleus. This will lead to apoptosis due to DNA fragmentation and condensation of chromatin induced by AIF.[25] Caspase 3 activation, on the other hand, causes apoptosis by cleaving crucial proteins involved in cellular repair processes.[26]"

Citation 24 is a primary research paper; norlichexanthone is mentioned as having some cytotoxicity in their in vitro assays. Following Wikipedia principles about properly using primary/secondary sources, this should probably not even be mentioned in the article–primary source, no followup mention in later studies); at the most, this might deserve a one-sentence mention (e.g. "Norlichexanthone was shown to have cytotoxic properties in laboratory studies."[24]) But the rest of the paragraph doubles down on the presumed importance of this factoid, offering more explanation of the possible mechanism of cytotoxicity and cites two additional papers (one of them a primary research paper from 2006) that don't even mention the molecule's name! Please check out the article lichexanthone, a related metabolite that has gone through the "Good Article" process, and is a better representation of the level of detail and sourcing expected on Wikipedia. Esculenta (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s., this is another "Deep Research" giveaway; it finds a minor tangent about cytotoxicity (that an experienced human editor would dismiss as non-notable for Wikipedia), and expands with other sources having no relation to the target article. Esculenta (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hello, I added the synonyms. Would you be able to continue the review. LittleJerry (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've said enough there. Esculenta (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creographa and Appressodiscus

It has just became clear to me that we've been edit warring on these for a few days. These articles were each about 18000 bytes with only 330 bytes readable so Category:Long stubs with short prose was appropriate. I may not have noticed that you removed the lengthy author list on the citations reducing the articles to around 2500 bytes. I restored Category:Long stubs with short prose anyway, because I was working from a stale report or did not recheck the article size. Sorry about that. I think we're done now. ~Kvng (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]