Talk:Nepenthes rajah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Nepenthes rajah has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles 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 reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 24, 2006.
Nepenthes rajah 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.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Mgiganteus1 (talk)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

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)

Personally, I think the article might qualify as A-Class, and would probably give it that status if I was authorized to do so. I won't speak to the matter of the distribution map, because I don't know that much about graphics. If a few more reference citations could be added (2 per paragraph is the standard I've heard) and if some of the short one sentence paragraphs could be merged together, I can't myself see any reaason to withhold FA status from the article. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Author Feedback

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

whoa, yes i agree.. this is a fantastic article... a bloody good job has been done on covering all the Nepenthes species on wikipedia also - nice work. Kotare 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "How to" section

mgiganteus:

As you can see above i think this is a great article - but i don't understand why my edits were so quickly dismissed and reverted! You said "introductions do not need citations" - well i can see at least 5 citations in this articles lead. Why not just provide a citation? As for the cultivation section "not being a how to guide" there are lots of tips and instructions given on cultivation of these species:

"Purified water should be used for watering purposes, although 'hard water' is tolerated"

I think a lot of the stuff in that section should stay, expecially the environmental factor stuff but there is some stuff in that section that i really don't think should be on wikipedia as it tells people how to grow the plants and that's information that is useful but it doesn't have a place in wikipedia. I can understand that the big template at the top of the page could just be off-pissing especially as its so unspecific and I hope we can work this out  :) Kotare 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC):

Actually forget I said anything. Now that I look closely it's not really presented as a how-to guide and if there's a citation later on fair enough.Kotare 09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That section certainly needs some work, but in this case I don't think slapping a big template on top of the article is the solution. I'll add the citation in a minute. Regards, Mgiganteus1 11:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)