Curating information literacy stories from around the world since 2005 - - - Stories identified, chosen and written by humans!
Wednesday, June 24, 2026
Chatting Info Lit: Desmystifying the publication process
It is avaliable at:
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-fourteen-demystifying-the-publication-process/id1673423506?i=1000770961870
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/18iLL0XJhLMg9YW8IXcPSi
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/chatting-info-lit-podcast/ep14
Transcript at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RxD_EZnPshCO77s-RG62_kPbr6YyU4po/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105844347620717531095&rtpof=true&sd=true
Photo by Sheila Webber: Sheffield Botanic Gardens, May 2026 - green shade is very welcome in the current hot weather
Thursday, April 09, 2026
10 Thoughts On “AI”
An interesting (I think) take on AI and its use in creative work, from the author John Scalzi. As he says, he can "write better than “AI” can or ever will, and I can do it with far less energy draw. I don’t need to destroy a watershed to write a novel. I can write a novel with Coke Zero and snacks." He also, e.g., makes useful comments about marketing, and the way AI is actually packed into almost everything already.
Scalzi, J. (2026, February 14). 10 Thoughts On “AI,” February 2026 Edition. https://whatever.scalzi.com/2026/02/14/10-thoughts-on-ai-february-2026-edition/
Photo by Sheila Webber: camellia, March 2026
Wednesday, April 01, 2026
Publish and Prosper: Self-Reflection and Survey Results from a Research Program for Librarians #LILAC26
First blog of the 3rd day from me (Sheila) of LILAC information literacy conference is Publish and Prosper: Self-Reflection and Survey Results from a Research Program for Librarians presented by Helen Power, Rhiannon Jones and Ethel Gamache (Canada). The abstract is here
They explained that they tried a prototype in 2023 using Belcher's Writing your journal article. Then they wanted to find out what the impact of the programme, so they decided to do some research, getting ethics approval. Therefore they ran the programme again, making use of a research accelerator programme that was designed to support librarians doing research (6 weeks online of 1.5 hour session), also supported by CAPAL so it could give a certificate (if you attended 5 out of 6 sessions). It was based on works by Belcher & on Cresswell, adapted for Canadian librarians - this included language, where to publish etc. This was run in summer 2025. There were 35 librarians taking part. There was a Discord, aiming to help create a community of practice.
The first sesssion was introduction, the 2nd on designing research (talking about picking a topic you know, different kinds of research approach, ethics etc.), the 3rd about working on writing, the 4th on developing evidence and interpretation (it was mentioned Belcher here was useful here, also they discussed knowledge justice), the 5th on strengthening our structure, and 6th on preparing for publishing (including dealing with responding to reviewers). They mentioned that on Zoom they used breakouts, whiteboard activities (e.g. where would you publish this title?) etc. Looking at the participants' profiles, on average research wasn't an expected part of their job, had taken a research methods course and published (but it varied).
The presenters then introduced the ACRL Framework for IL in Higher Education and their definition of Information Literacy (I've covered this framework a lot in this blog so I won't describe it here!). Then they they pulled out the elements of the Framework which they found particularly useful for this programme (e.g. that research is iterative, that questions lead to more questions but you also need to know when to stop) and gave examples of how they were used in the programme. As examples (they showed all 6 weeks but I can't type that fast!) they used Information Creation as Process and Scholarship as a conversation (including giving and receiving feedback) in week one. In week 3 the learning outcomes were: discussing approaches to writing literature reviews and articulating claims for significance ("so what?"), and the ACRL Frames were authority is constructed and contextual and searching as strategic exploration. In week 4 the learning outcomes were differentiating between different kinds of article structure and also optimising different strategies for editing documents for comprehensiveness and clarity - the ACRL Frames used here were on Information creation as a process and Searching as strategic exploration. I'll also mention that in week 6 they covered wellness and emotions, when looking at the reasons why papers get rejected, and there was a discussion about predatory journals and how to spot them.
There research of the programme consisted a pre programme survey, mid point survey, immediate post session survey and 6 month follow up. Also they qualitatively analysed the chat and activities (if people did not want to be included in this analysis they were excluded).
In terms of which session was most helpful, this was spread across sessions 2-5, and what emerged was it was the session most useful at the point of individual need. In terms of least helpful, it was again mostly related to the stage they were at in their research/ writing. In terms of the participants' reported skill levels, this showed improvement through the programme and in fact it was strongest in the 6 month follow up. Also they had quotes about confidence going up and benefiting from interacting with peers. Of respondents to the questionnaire 8 had completed a draft of their writing, 7 not, and the 6 month follow up showed that some had submitted and all at least intended to.
In terms of the observations, participants engaged more fully as the weeks progressed (having been less active in information interaction initially). They observed some breakout rooms: dynamics varied between breakout rooms. They had the suggestion of having the same people in your breakout room every time - positives were that people might be more likely to talk & it saved time as you didn't have to introduce yourself each time, although there were downsides such as getting to know fewer people. Also there was a suggestion on having one on one breakouts, which also had positives and negatives.
Looking to the future they will use their findings to develop the programme and plan to run it every 2 years with (probably) rotation of facilitators. They also plan to write an article!
They also helpfully include material from their programme in a google folder with the slides from this presentation the link (added 2nd April) is https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ziiMh3_o-m4AZlth0pbck8olOQiGdcka.
Photo by Sheila Webber: Camellias in the Sheffield Botanic Gardens, March 2026
Saturday, August 09, 2025
Scholarly Horizons
Go to https://scholarlyhorizons.co.za/Photo by Sheila Webber: plant, July 2025
Thursday, July 31, 2025
Rethinking Wikipedia from a Library Perspective
Photo by Sheila Webber: Cosmos, July 2025
Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Publish or perish game
Max Hui Bai has released a (priced) game, Publish or perish, about the pressures of academic publishing "Players race to publish manuscripts with useless nonsense while sabotaging each other's research and delivering "very helpful" comments, Reviewer 2 style" (for those not into academic publishing "reviewer 2" is the highly critical reviewer who appears to have no clue about the subject/methods but nevertheless hacks into you, or who seems to be deliberately torpedoing your work, or who just demands a large amount of fiddly / pointless change).
It is available in English or Chinese and has some expansion packs: go to https://publishorperish.games/
Not to be confused with The Publishing Trap (though if you are interested in one, you likely will be interested in the other)
Photo by Sheila Webber: books in the library, May 2025
Sunday, May 25, 2025
A Guide to Publishing Open Access
Photo by Sheila Webber: dandelion flowers and clocks, May 2025
Wednesday, May 21, 2025
30 years of Information Research
- A Reflection on 30 Years of Information Research with Professor Tom Wilson (Crystal Fulton interviews founder and researcher, Professor Tom Wilson)
- Information Research at 30: its role as a diamond open access journal supporting scholarly communication in library and information science by JungWon Yoon, James E. Andrews, EunKyung Chung
- An examination of Wilson’s Concept of Information Need: implications by Charles Cole
- Expanding Wilson’s information behaviour model using social cognitive theory: A case study by Peymon Montazeri
- 30 years of Information Research papers citing Professor Tom D. Wilson: a bibliometric analysis by Tanja Svarre, Birger Larsen
- A 24-Year Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal Information Research: Insights from CiteSpace by Lin Wang, Yiyu Chen
- Searching for Information Research: A bibliometric analysis celebrating 30 years of a pioneering open access journal (1995-2024) by Gustaf Nelhans, Camilla Lindelöw, Pablo Lillo Cea, Marco Scirone, Rui José António , Björn Hammarfelt
- Tom Wilson and Information Research: Pioneers of the diamond open access by Jose-Vicente Rodriguez-Munoz, Francisco Javier Martinez Mendez, Pedro-Manuel Diaz-Ortuno, Gregorio Moya-Martinez, Rosana Lopez-Carreno
- Information Research comes to Borås by Karen Nowé Hedvall et al.
Go to https://publicera.kb.se/ir/issue/view/3787
Photo by Sheila Webber: young chestnut leaves, April 2025
Monday, March 03, 2025
Media Viability Manifesto
This report aims at identifying how "financially and
editorially independent
and diverse media" can be sustained. It is supported by 13 organisations, including UNESCO, Deutsche Welle Akademie, Fondation Hirondelle and IMS (International Media Support).
"The Media Viability Manifesto (MVM) provides
an urgently needed common framework
for joint action from the global media
development community. Its aim is three pronged: To foster conceptual clarity, to
strengthen strategic collaboration between
multiple stakeholders, and to align practical
implementation in the field of Media Viability.
The MVM is the culmination of input from
152 individuals from 55 countries and
86 organizations."
Go to https://mediaviabilitymanifesto.org/ - it is available in English, Spanish, French and Arabic It was launched with a panel session in January 2025, the recording is here https://youtu.be/wNmbv04XebE?si=RrSdLnQgtmayjxhY
Monday, February 10, 2025
New articles: Data literacy; Academics' information needs; Peer review; Academic success; #infolit & composition
Volume 51 issue 1 (2025) of the priced Journal of Academic Librarianship (a priced publication) includes the following:
- What makes students tick? Exploring factors that affect learner motivations and challenges when engaging with optional library workshops on data literacy by Michelle Kelly Schultz (open access)
- From grades to growth: Understanding undergraduate perceptions of academic success by Jung Mi Scoulas, Kimberly Shotick, Sandra L. De Groote, Nestor L. Osorio (open access)
- Empowering future researchers: Designing an information literacy-centric introductory composition course by Kristin Leaman, E.C. McGregor Boyle, Dave Zwicky
- Academics' information needs from the librarians' perspective: A study of the research community of practice by Anna Mierzecka (open access)
- Feedback literacy and peer review experiences within library and information science journals by LeEtta M. Schmidt, Jessica N. Szempruch
Go to https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/the-journal-of-academic-librarianship/vol/51/issue/1
Photo by Sheila Webber: snow, January 2025; it is just cold and damp at the moment
Tuesday, December 03, 2024
Insights from digital content creators; understanding their intentions, practices and challenges
UNESCO has published interesting research into content creators' information sharing practices. 500 adult content creators from around the worldanswered a questionnaire (in 8 languages) and 20 people were interviewed ("qualified UNESCO contacts, or members of professional journalist organisations who also filled out the survey). Content creators are defined
"as individuals who regularly post content online for public consumption and have more than 1,000 followers". This is part of UNESCO's strategy of developing influencers' Media and Information Literacy.
Some findings are:
- "‘popularity’ – measured by the number of likes and views - is the most common indicator of credibility for online sources (42%)." Second most common was judging through the endorsement by people the content creators trusted.
- Motivation to create content: Most popular were sharing knowledge with others (26%); earning income (23.8%); entertaining others (23.4%).
- 62% did not verify accuracy of information before sharing it
- Where the content creators sources information: Personal experience/encounter was the most frequent at 58.1%. Mainstream news media ties with online non-mainstream media sources as the third most common source at. They mostly don't use official sources
- About 85% do not belong to any creators’ association.If they do, the most common are Online Creators Association (17.2%), DigitalCreators Association (15.6%), Web Content Creators Association (13.4%) and International Content Creator Association for Social Media (13.4%). I must say that I wasn't aware of any of these! As a content creator (since I do have nearly 2000 followers on X, at least at the moment...) perhaps I should join one!
Reference: Ha, L. (2024). Behind the screens: insights from digital content creators; understanding their intentions, practices and challenges. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000392006
Saturday, January 20, 2024
Recent articles: Faculty attitudes; Librarians' experiences of teaching; Generative AI; Curriculum mapping in political science
- Baer, A. (2024). Academic Instruction Librarians' Conceptions of Teacher Agency and Affective Orientations toward the Concept. portal: Libraries and the Academy 24(1), 105-135. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2024.a916992 " Participants generally expressed positive affect when they felt they were independently in control of their teaching (individual agency), or when they described reciprocal and collaborative relationships with faculty (potentially collective agency). Participants expressed negative affect about experiences of lacking teacher agency. Almost all participants expressed 1) a desire to experience meaning and purpose in teaching and 2) a sensitivity to the highly relational nature of librarians' instructional work."
- Stonebraker, I., & LeMire, S. (2023). Requesting Librarian-Led Information Literacy Support: Instructor Approaches, Experiences, and Attitudes. portal: Libraries and the Academy 23(4), 843-862. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.a908704 " Librarians at two large institutions surveyed 29 instructors and then interviewed 11 about their experiences working with librarians, their motivations for involving librarians in their courses, and their goals for including information literacy instruction. The study found that instructors had many different levels of experience with the library. Motivations for inviting librarians to their classes included creating a support network and sharing librarian expertise with students."
- Henson, B. (2023). Using Curriculum Mapping to Understand Information Literacy in Political Science Curricula. portal: Libraries and the Academy 23(4), 717-744. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.a908699 - Hurrell, C., Beatty, S., Murphy, J.E., Cramer, D., Lee, J., & McClurg, C. (2024). Learning and Teaching about Scholarly Communication: Findings from Graduate Students and Mentors. portal: Libraries and the Academy 24(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2024.a916991
- Miller, R.E. (2024). Pandora's Can of Worms: A Year of Generative AI in Higher Education. portal: Libraries and the Academy 24(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2024.a916988 "... this article reports on the experience of learning about generative AI at one university. This article considers ways that educators may use AI tools and reasons to resist adopting generative AI tools, situating uses on a spectrum of acceptability."
Photo by Sheila Webber: Trees in the botanic gardens January 2024
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Scholarly Communication Toolkit
I recently rediscovered the Scholarly Communication Toolkit produced by ACRL.
"The toolkit is an educational resource primarily directed to librarians to assist them with: integrating a scholarly communication perspective into library operations and programs and preparing presentations on scholarly communication issues for administrators, faculty, staff, students, or other librarians."
The last big update was in 2016, but they continue to update this resource.
It's at https://acrl.libguides.com/scholcomm/toolkit/home
Image by Sheila Webber using Midjourney AI, with prompt scholarly communication, academics, journals, in the style of David Hockney, colourful, --ar 16:9
It is colourful
Thursday, October 12, 2023
Design Thinking; Citation styles #ECIL2023
As my final session at ECIL I attended and liveblog Information Literacy in the Design Thinking process – A Preliminary Research was presented by Dorota Rak (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland).
She identified that design thinking can be seen as a mindset, a methodology or a problem solving philosophy. Rak say that it was “a manifestation of collective intelligence” where students are designers and also use innovative designs. There are three aspects – the institutional area, the operational area (e.g. with tools supporting the design thinking process) and the didactic area. Rak said that librarians had recognised the value of integrating DT, that DT can be a driver of information behaviour, and also that DT can be used to develop practice and learning. Rak identified that IL was “a vauable competency for nuturing social capital”.
The research problems that Rak addressed were – what information competencies do students need for DT; what tools do they need; what skills do they need. Data was collected through a questionnaire administered to university students and also examination of the literature. The majority of the respondents had a good understanding of both “Information Literacy” and “Design Thinking”. The majority also were able to define their information needs across the DT process. However, some stages were seen as more difficult and in more need of support.
The students were asked how useful they found obtained information across the stages of the Design Thinking process. There were differencies across the stages and also between students on the 2 different programmes surveyed. There were also differences in terms of organising information, and use of different tools.
Conclusions included designing a curriculum that effectively integrated information management principles with the dynamic iterative nature of DT.
The second presentation was “Who Cares?” Defining Citation Style in Scholarly Journals from Pavla Vizváry (Masaryk University, Czech Republic) and Vincas Grigas (Vilnius University, Lithuania). Grigas started by identifying that there are more citation styles (10 thousand) than species of birds! The identified problem is that there are all these styles, you have to follow a style strictly in published journals, people are not expert in all styles, so so authors make mistakes. This is a problem as it’s a burden to authors, but inconsistency makes it more difficult to find articles etc. Their aim was to identify citation styles required by journals in SCOPUS. They had questions such as how cleraly the journals express their requirement. They analysed 270 journals, looking also for types of mistake in citation. They were aiming to understand how different stakeholders (e.g. authors, publishers) are affected. Also they used cognitive load theory – worries about formatting can divert energy from the main task of writing.
Vizváry took over to return to the question of “Who cares”? The answer included publishers, editors, librarians, authors and teachers. Introducing SCOPUS, they looked at Lithuanian and Czech journals and also sampled journals published in other countries, comparing their statistics (such as H index). From this statistical point of view the Czech and Lithuanian journals were similar to each other, but had a slightly different profile to the international sample. Vizváry also noted that there were more English-only journals published in Lithuania and Czech Republic than national language ones, and there were differences in the patterns of open publishing.
Moving on to differences in form of intext references (numbers or author names) there were significant differences by subject, and this was more important than differences from country to country.
The most common journal reference style is, sadly, “unnamed” i.e. they just give examples, next was APA. They noted that the ISO format was strong in the Czech Republic, but not elsewhere. In social sciences APA was named a lot, but “unnamed” was the most common in some subjects. 84.4% of journals give example references (others tend to link to the style’s website). They also noted that not all journals include DOIs in their reference styles. There was a question afterwards about whether the “unnamed” styles were actually specific styles, and the authors said that they’d tried some unnamed styles in ChatGPT and it had said in each case that it was like style X, but with these differences. They were thinking of doing more of this ChatGPT-aided diagnosis.
Friday, April 21, 2023
Information Literacy and podcasting: teaching and learning through conversation #LILAC23 @pedagodzilla @UKCopyrightLit
This is Sheila Webber, catching up on the last session I attended yesterday (my laptop battery ran out before the session did - as a sidenote, why do modern university building still not have enough sockets for recharging?)
This presentation was run as a podcast of Chatting Infolit (Bethan Morgan, Josh Rodda & Ella Wharton), with guests Mark Childs, one half of the Pedagodzilla podcast (combining pedagogy and pop culture) and Chris Morrison and Jane Secker who produce Copyright Waffle. Having experienced the event it will be fascinating to hear what makes it through into the actual podcast! It was a really lively session, and these are my impressions of what went on.
Childs said how the idea for Pedagodzilla came up in conversation with Mike Collins about education, and thinking about how to explain theories and models relevant to education in an accessible and engaging way. It also exploited their interest in comics, films etc. Similarly Secker and Morrison wanted to make copyright literacy easier to understand and more interesting, and find out what made it interesting to other people.
They all agreed that you don't have to have expensive kit e.g. you can use the free app Audacity for editing (although they all had good microphones). In terms of inviting people to your podcast, Childs said it was a good idea not to start out by inviting in "big names" but get a structure and format that works for you before inviting people who are going to make you nervous. Finding people who are going to be enthusiastic is going to make the podcast more interesting, and both Copyright Waffle and Pedagodzilla have people offering ideas for podcast episodes.
In terms of challenges - Childs said he didn't really have any, as Collins had the technical expertise, and also, because community engagement was part of the job for them at the Open University, then they could do a lot in work time (though Childs has now moved to Durham University). The podcasters agreed that time (editing etc.) was an issue. Morrison said that they had worried about being too self indulgent, but the point was made that if you don't want to listen, you don't have to.
Childs advised not worrying about an audience for your podcast initially, because it will build exponentially as you create more episodes. However, getting to know how to put the podcast on different platforms (which is a good way of extending your audience) requires some effort. They also talked about things like listing the podcast in your email signature.
There was a question about the connection with pedagogy and information literacy. The podcasters talked about learning through conversation and dialogue, and podcasting seeming perhaps more direct and intimate than a video. Secker felt that podcasting was particularly useful for exploring big issues for example in information literacy. They see Copyright Waffle as not being about giving step by step guides through a topic but, for example, helping people understand that there are people that can give them advice, getting people interested in the topic, getting people motivated to find out more for themselves.
There was a question about how podcasting had affected other parts of their professional lives. Morrison said that he could refer people to specific podcasts and podcast guests - particularly to answer questions that come up again and again. Secker said that it had made her more confident in her teaching. Childs said that he has found it as an outlet for a creative and authentic self. It could also be seen as evidence of your impact, particularly if you have statistics to show that people from many countries are listening to your podcast. Morrison and Secker saw podcasting as part of open educational practice, and have a creative commons license.
There was a question about how long something had to b, to count as e a podcast: the feeling was - 10 minutes, but it had to be conversational with the dialogue element. A follow up question was the difference between an audio file and a podcast. This seems to be an evolving question, as an older definition just mentions the audio file part. There was agreement that it has to be disseminated via rss and have episodes. Then there are additional elements such as brand, marketing, narrative, show notes etc. The element of conversation and dialogue was mentioned again. The podcasters were asked whether their interviews were like research interviews. Morrison said they have a conversation with interviewees beforehand, but they don't have a set list of questions, making it more organic and a conversation rather than an interview. Childs said that over preparation makes it sound stilted, but you had to make some preparation or (speaking from experience) it could go wrong. I blogged recently that I have done two Pedagodzilla podcasts and from my perspective it didn't seem like an interview, but was joining in a fun conversation.
This was a fun and useful session and may well result in more podcasters!
Thursday, September 15, 2022
Keeping up with ... #peerReviewWeek
The latest in ACRL's Keeping Up With .... series is Keeping up with ... peer review week. As usual it is a short publication with brief explanation, suggested articles and links, all to do with peer review (including some articles troubling the notion). It is here.
I hadn't realised Peer review week was a thing, but it is next week: https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/ The organisations behind it are mostly publishers of various kinds.
Friday, July 15, 2022
Scholarly Communication Libguide
Sunday, December 12, 2021
Recent books from ALA: Strategies for Teaching Adult Learners; Scholarly Communications Cookbook
These links are to the e-book versions.
- Miller, M.L. (2021). Mind, Motivation, and Meaningful Learning: Strategies for Teaching Adult Learners. American Library Association, ACRL. ISBN 978-0-8389-3895-9. Cost US $64.00; ALA Member $57.60. https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/mind-motivation-and-meaningful-learning-strategies-teaching-adult-learners%E2%80%94eeditions-pdf-e
- Buljung, B. & Bongiovanni, E. (Eds) (2021). The Scholarly Communications Cookbook. American Library Association, ACRL. ISBN 978-0-8389-3848-5. Cost US $62.00;
ALA Member $55.80. https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/scholarly-communications-cookbook%E2%80%94eeditions-pdf-e-book
Photo by Sheila Webber: Greenwich Park, December 2021
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Paper Trails: The Social Life of Archives and Collections @UCLpress
(1) Research Stories "Full-length research articles which encourage a focus on research stories to invite a reflective methodology, offering an inclusive and engaged commentary on the work involved in researching, ordering and preserving the past"
(2) Co-production "Outputs from projects in which non-academic, undergraduate and taught postgraduate audiences collaborate with others (collection professions, academics, members of the public, etc.) to create new work that is based on research collections."
(3) Collection Profiles "Shorter, descriptive or even narrative pieces that highlight items or collections of interest." Example: Historic Children’s Literature Collection by Catherine Dack
(4) Engagement "Reflective pieces that focus on a broad range of engagement activities, from the professional’s perspective. These can be case studies, or ‘think pieces’ on particular skills or techniques" Example: 'Giving Peace a Chance': Archives Engagement at LSE Library, by Debbie Challis & Daniel Payne
The book is part of the Academic Book of the Future: BOOC (Books as Open Online Content) project https://ucldigitalpress.co.uk/BOOC/
Photo by Sheila Webber: non-virtual books and programmes, 2021
Monday, July 19, 2021
Liber quarterly recent articles: open journals as teaching tools
- Koskinen, K., Roinila, M., & Syvälahti, K. (2021). Open Journal Systems as a Pedagogical Tool to Teach and Learn Scholarly Publishing: The Helsinki University Library Experience. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 31(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10375 "Editori is an open journal service at the University of Helsinki designed with an educational focus, providing simultaneously a contribution to the rising trend of university-based and library-based publishing. We show how this service, based on Open Journal Systems (OJS), can be applied as a pedagogical tool for teaching scholarly publishing skills to university students."
- Ball, J., Stone, G., & Thompson, S. (2021). Opening up the Library: Transforming our Policies, Practices and Structures. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 31(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10360
Photo by Sheila Webber: late spring tree, June 2021




