WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi
A fact from Buellia frigida appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 December 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Antarctic lichen Buellia frigida has been to outer space?
Reference for the diagnosis? Whose translation? (I.e., is it a public domain translation?) I note that the MOS is generally not keen on wikilinks in quotes, but I don't mind them.
It's a GPT4-assisted translation. Yep, it's a machine translation/LLM (and I understand the caveats at the now quite-outdated advice at WP:MACHINE), but from my own experience (i.e. years of reading original Latin descriptions), it's a quite good translation. I read WP:HOWTRANS, but am unclear how to acknowledge the GPT translation, or if it's required. Any ideas? Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"these experiments provide essential insights" This is a nice example of some slight wordiness; it borders on editorialising. I suspect the writing could be a little smoother in places. (Some of the ecological information felt a little repetitive, for instance -- but perhaps that will be filtered out if you manage to restructure things a little to avoid multiple ecology sections.) I suspect the writing falls short of the brilliant prose called for at FAC, but I appreciate that the article isn't currently at FAC!
"emphasizing the intricate nature of lichen adaptation to non-terrestrial environments" Ditto on the edititorialising. I don't think these are the only examples.
Thanks for this; I've gone through the article again and reduced examples of this that I could spot. I may try FAC for this article in the future, so please point out any more places you see where the prose could be tightened. Esculenta (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is just my ignorance, but I don't really know what "genetic integrity" means in this context.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that the Antarctic lichen Buellia frigida has been to outer space? Source: Backhaus et al. (2019). "DNA damage of the lichen Buellia frigida after 1.5 years in space using Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) technique" doi:10.1016/j.pss.201907002
Article GA new enough and article long enough. Checking ref now. This will be nomination 6, so I do believe QPQ needs will kick in now.--Kevmin§16:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article long enough and good enough, hooks cited and sourced. Regarding hook Alt2, am i right in associating it with the source estimate of possibly a 7000 year age?. The QPQ may work, though the age of it and that it was failed out before full review migh be considered problematic by nom promoters.--Kevmin§19:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is looking good at this stage. No policy issues seen in the article, no copyvio or close paraphrasing with the prose. I lean towards Alt0 or Alt1 as first selections for use. Good to go.--Kevmin§19:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC02:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am far from an advocate of LLMs as writing aids, and wouldn't use them to help write an article in the way the author did. But I'm sympathetic to Silver seren's perspective: is there any indication that there are problems with the article? I spent a good bit of time with the article before and during the review and thought it was of a high quality. This included rooting out some problems low-level problems fairly typical of LLM-generated content, as well as encouraging the author to be open about the use of ChatGPT (see my review). It's entirely possible I've missed something; e.g., maybe I should have done more source spotchecking. If there are problems, I'm happy to help fix them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
