Talk:Confluentic acid

GA Review

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. Recon rabbit 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• [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] checkY but not a particularly strong source.
• [9] checkY
• [12] checkY for both uses
• [14] checkY They must have some insanely advanced instrumentation to get data that looks that clean.
• [19] checkY

• checkY 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. Recon rabbit 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• checkY Addressed One other concern is that the lead does not make any mention of the history of the compound's discovery.

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

• Orange tickY "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. Recon rabbit 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. Recon rabbit 05:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• checkY 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 ]

• checkY 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 ]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. Silver seren ^C 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Even though it was two years ago, I stand by my assessment of the article then. If necessary I can use various means to get ahold of the few sources I could not directly assess to check for text-source integrity. -- Recon rabbit 11:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I looked at one of the most-referenced sources that I wasn't able to check before, "Über Flechteninhaltsstoffe, I. Konstitution der Confluentinsäure". I found that the information contained there matched the text here. I do wonder about Elix and Ferguson though; it seems a bit like WP:SYNTH to cite their paper and then draw the conclusion that it marked a significant advancement in understanding of this lichen substance, enabling scientists to better study and understand the compound's structure and biological activity without relying solely on natural extraction. I was able to verify the contents of [11] w.r.t. lichen differentiation. That one sentence (and the wording of Orange et al. 2001 are my only potential issues with this article. I believe this should remain as a Good Article. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've axed most of that sentence: it's classic LLM-waffle, and as you note its key claim wasn't supported by the source to begin with. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]