Talk:Drosera anglica
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Carnivorous plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to carnivorous plants. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance for WikiProject Plants assessment. | ||
 |
An entry from Drosera anglica appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 26 April 2006. |
 |
 |
Drosera anglica has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
[edit] GA review
It looks good - just a couple of minor suggestions before it fully meets the criteria:
1. could an explanation of 'thigmatropic' and 'amphiploid' be added?
-
- I added a short explanation of 'thigmotropic'. 'Amphiploid' is explained in the last paragraph, but the word appears twice before then. Should I add an explanation earlier?
- Yes, I think an explanation on its first use would be good.
- Done! --NoahElhardt 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think an explanation on its first use would be good.
- I added a short explanation of 'thigmotropic'. 'Amphiploid' is explained in the last paragraph, but the word appears twice before then. Should I add an explanation earlier?
2. should the 'citations' section not be called 'references'?
-
- Should it? Okay, fixed.
3. consider whether a gallery is really essential? Commons is more the place for image galleries.
-
- Plant articles really benefit from relevant image galleries imo. Plant identification depends on a good feel for plant morphology, which is best communicated through pictures. Most users won't know to look in the commons. People who want to know what the flower looks like, for instance, will usually not think to look in the commons for a picture. These images are all relevant to the text, but the article is really to small to integrate them all. I do agree that more than four pictures in a gallery for this size of article would be overkill. See another example of a (more extensive) gallery used in Nepenthes rajah. --NoahElhardt 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK then, that seems like a very reasonable use of a gallery. Worldtraveller 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Plant articles really benefit from relevant image galleries imo. Plant identification depends on a good feel for plant morphology, which is best communicated through pictures. Most users won't know to look in the commons. People who want to know what the flower looks like, for instance, will usually not think to look in the commons for a picture. These images are all relevant to the text, but the article is really to small to integrate them all. I do agree that more than four pictures in a gallery for this size of article would be overkill. See another example of a (more extensive) gallery used in Nepenthes rajah. --NoahElhardt 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Worldtraveller 14:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it meets criteria, Worldtraveller's suggested changes all addressed. Pete.Hurd 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
