Talk:Nepenthes rajah

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.
Good article 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.
Good articles Nepenthes rajah has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Did You Know An entry from Nepenthes rajah appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 January 2006.
Wikipedia
Peer review Nepenthes rajah has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Mgiganteus1 (talk)

Contents

[edit] digestion mechanism

This is a great article and maybe you planned on getting to it, but is there more detail avaialable on the digestion mechanism? Enzyme, bacteria, etc. The general carnivorous plants and the genus article don't have any details on this one but do note that various plants have a variety of mechanisms. Thanks - Taxman Talk 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, great article. Props. jengod 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added a link to a detailed page on this topic to the Nepenthes article. Thanks. NepGrower 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh great, but it would be much better to cite the source directly, either by including a fact from it and footnoting it, or describing in the text what Frazier found. Some goes for this article. - Taxman Talk 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I am very impressed with the amount of work that has been put in to this article recently. I notice the footnoted references have not been implemented quite right. They need to be either fixed using {{ref_label}} and {{note_label}}, or switched over to the new <ref> inline footnoting scheme. For instructions on the new footnoting scheme see Meta:Cite.php. I might giv eit a try myself when I get a chance, if no one beats me to it. --Martyman-(talk) 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would happily do it, but I'm not sure how to use the tags. Mgiganteus1 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The new ref tags are pretty easy to use. There is a description at Meta:Cite.php. An example of an article I have switched over to it is at Lake Burley Griffin the actual edit where I changed it over is here. Essentially the first time you use a reference you place the reference text inline in the document, after that you just have to refer to the reference by name. Then the reference list at the end is auto generated in the correct order with all the correct links. I will do it and you can watch what I did for next time. --Martyman-(talk) 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I converted it over. Please double check that the page is still displaying fine as making mistakes in teh ref tags appears to be able to blank out secitons of text. I have checked it and it looks fine though. I hope you guys don't have any trouble working out how it works and being able to build on it. I might add as a bit of a warning, wikipedia' sno original research policy means that the self refs would never get through a featured article proccess. Thanks again for all the hard work on this and related articles. --Martyman-(talk) 10:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! The notes section looks great and I now know how to use the new ref tags. Thanks again. :) Mgiganteus1 15:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not listed on GA

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles, but I have removed the nomination because:

  • The intro starts off with the somewhat weasely arguably the most famous of all pitcher plants - you could just say 'one of the most famous' and it would sound a lot better
  • There is a section which warns the reader about impenetrable terminology - this falls foul of the criterion which requires that articles be intelligible to the layman and that jargon is explained.
  • Galleries are more appropriate on the Wikimedia Commons, and quotes should not be given a section as their selection will almost inevitably express a POV.
  • Language like 'this statement is pure fantasy' is not very encyclopaedic.

Otherwise it's a very fine article and you should re-nominate it once these are corrected. Worldtraveller 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Mgiganteus1 13:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Great work! I've listed it on GA now. Worldtraveller 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage?

I've removed the {{prod}} tag from Nepenthes rajah/B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah and replaced it with an {{afd}}, so the decision may be considered by more editors before anything happens. The question of copyright seems to be an important one, since this text was written by B. H. Danser. Please contribute to the AfD discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA status?

It looks like this article has reached FA status. Any plans to submit it any time soon?

My one critique has to do with the distribution map, which appears far too dark to me. Any way you could lighten it and re-upload it? If not, I can try to do the same when I get a chance. --NoahElhardt 00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author Feedback

WHat a sensational article - well done, obviously took a great deal of time HelloMojo 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/p/Talk%7ENepenthes_rajah_50f6.html"