Talk:Venus flytrap/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• All right, here's my review:
• Article is generally well-written. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Verifiability is the main issue: There's a citation needed tag in the description section, and most of the cultivation section has no citation. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Broad coverage: Everything looks good here; not too in depth, nothing lacking. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Images are all OK on copyrights. One minor thing though (tell me if this is not a standard practice): I think it could be improved if the distribution map were more focused on the region where the flytrap actually lives. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - seems good to me Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No stability issues detected. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• One more comment; on the "Evolution" section, you say "Researchers have proposed". It's kind of ambiguous who these researchers are or if there are any alternative hypotheses for Dionaea evolution. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• The lead mostly talks about the trapping mechanism, briefly mentioning distribution and classification. It should also summarize the rest of the article, like description, cultivation, evolution, or conservation. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• That concludes my review. Nomination put on hold for 7 days. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) Seems like a reasonable review to me. One thing specifically stood out to me, you mentioned that the "cultivation" section is unreferenced. I have a copy of The Savage Garden: Cultivating Carnivorous Plants a book on, well, cultivating carnivorous plants. It is already cited in the "description" section as a source for the last sentence, "When grown from seed, plants take around four to five years to reach maturity and will live for 20 to 30 years if cultivated in the right conditions." First of all do you think that piece of information would fit better in the "cultivation" section, or should it be left where it is? Second, seeing as I have a copy of that book, I could even cite specific pages to back up individual statements in the "cultivation" section. How does that sound? SarrCat ∑;3 22:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) Yes, I think that sounds like a good source and that piece of information would fit better in the cultivation section. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus (talk · contribs)Alright then, I'll make these edits and add citations for the pages in the book where the information can be found. Nw I gotta go find the thing, it's on my bookshelf somewhere... Anyways, is there a specific way that is preferred for citing the same book, but different pages, without having a bunch of citations that are basically identical, except for the page number? I know how to cite the whole work multiple times, just use named references, but I was wondering about citing it multiple times with a different page number in each citation.SarrCat ∑;3 22:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) Well, I've never done that before. I'd go to Help:References and page numbers to see how to do it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) I'll have to check that out. The citation to the book is currently for the whole work, and at the end of the cultivation section, where I moved it, along with that other bit of information about the plants lifespan. Anyways, you also mentioned the evolution section in your review, right?. Coincidentally, this morning, while reading the comments in a blog I follow, I came across a link to a blog post about a recently published article on the flytrap's evolution (Full text here). The blog post also linked to this article, which I think might be the same thing more or less. I cant view it though as I don't have a subscription. Anyways, I was thinking these might be great sources of additional information that could be added to the article's evolution section, if what is contained in them isn't already present. SarrCat ∑;3 11:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) Yep, those look like excellent sources for more info. Send me an email and I can get you a pdf of that Science Magazine article if you want. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sarr_Cat (talk · contribs) OK, I sent you the pdf. Though, actually reading the article, all it does is summarizes the open access on from Genome Research, so you'll probably be fine just using that one. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• The seven-day hold is up, but some of my concerns have not been addressed. Specifically, there is still a citation need tag in the description section, and the lead still does not summarize the whole article. I'm going to leave the review open for another week for these to be addressed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• No action for the second week. I will close the nomination as no-pass. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 18:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)