Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Botany/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Botany edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because 4-5 of us editors have been working hard for a couple months to make this key article as good as we can. We hope to receive good feedback here in hopes of eventually reaching featured status.Thanks, 512bits (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Praemonitus: It's a decent article, although I found quite a few sentences that appear in need of copy-editing. Overall it varies widely in difficulty, ranging from fairly easy reading to more dense technical text. A more even comprehension level would be preferable, and would perhaps make the text more engaging. Here's a few other points that stood out for me:

  • Technical terms that lack a link at first use: evapotranspiration, stomatal aperture, photosynthesis, genome, monoecious, sporophytes, tetraploid, hexaploid, diterpenes, acetyl CoA, methionine, and phytohormones. The first use of 'stomatal' should be linked.
    • Linked stoma. Did NOT do other items.512bits (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, well if you decide take it for FAC, then you'll need to satisfy the style guidelines, including MOS:JARGON. I could live with links, but some would prefer that you explain the jargon. If you do neither, then your FAC may fail. Praemonitus (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, did the ones I could find, could not find stomal aperture 512bits (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is sorted - stomatal redirects to stoma Plantsurfer (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Quite a lot of work has been done to link technical terms and soften language. Does this still need more attention, or has it been dealt with?? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...studied by mycologists, phycologists and botanists, respectively, and these groups remain...": I'd suggest inserting the 'respectively' here for clarify.
  • "Botany originated in prehistory as herbalism..."
  • "The spice trade was of great economic and political importance during the Middle Ages, driving world exploration. Medieval physic gardens, often attached to monasteries, contained plants of medical importance.": how are these connected to botany? The first sentence isn't mentioned in the article body.
    • I've removed the first sentence for now, as it wasn't in the body. In the body I've noted how medieval physic gardens were forerunners of university botanic gardens (at least according to the source used in the article). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...new techniques were developed for the study of plants, including new methods...": both uses of 'new' are redundant here. Likewise with "...exploited the new techniques of...".
  • The 'Early botany' section is inconsistent about identifying the name and profession of the various individuals, particularly in the last paragraph.
  • "...had arrived in Europe from newly discovered countries and the European colonies worldwide and a larger number of plants available for study...": multiple 'and's make this unclear. Perhaps change second 'and' to ', making'.
  • "Botanical guides from this time were sparsely illustrated": this observation seems out of place. Please try to fit it in the context.
    • Ihave removed this sentence for now. It point is not clear, and it looks like a non sequiteur. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...life cycles quickly led to the realisation...": 'quickly' here is vague and unnecessary since dates follow.
  • "...later classification by Bentham and Hooker...": who are these people?
    • Done. Linked the individual authors and their system. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Early modern botany' section, the last two sentences of paragraph two appear incongruous and seem to belong in the next section. The last sentence is also unsourced.
    • Good points. I have moved these sentences to the end of the modern botany section. The unreferenced second sentence you refer to is now sourced in the following sentence. Is this adequate?? Plantsurfer (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...impetus for the concept of plant community, succession, community change, and energy flows": this sentence throws multiple concepts at the reader that aren't well explained. I think it fails in its objective.
    • I have copy-edited this in an attempt to improve it. Please feedback. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(a minor constituent of the atmosphere and an important greenhouse gas)": this sentence is mostly irrelevant to the context, so it seems political in origin. Climate change is already mentioned further on in a more appropriate context.
    • I agree. I have removed that phrase and copy edited the paragraph.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Botany includes both the internal functions...": the wording doesn't seem quite right. It might be better to begin the sentence with: Botanists examine...
  • "When this kind of study is turned to the investigation of plant-people relationships in past times, it is referred to as archaeobotany or paleoethnobotany": The tense of this sentence appears improper.
    • Copy-edited. I hope I have managed simplify the construction and improve clarity. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...directly from the plants": 'the plants' should be just 'plants'.
  • The 'Plant biochemistry' section is almost entirely about the beneficial products of plants. Was this the intent?
    • No. This certainly needs more work to summarize primary metabolism.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done now, I think. I have added in sections on photosynthesis and other unique aspects of plant biochemistry. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...to promote outcrossing" <<-- misplaced double-quote mark?
  • "This is one type of apomixis": this sentence seemed awkwardly placed. In this context I think it should either explain the term or be merged with the previous text.
    • I have copy edited this section in an attempt to make it clearer. Does this address/resolve the issue? Plantsurfer (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...giving rise to a number of extinct groups...": now-extinct? Otherwise it appears paradoxical.
  • "...molecular genetics and epigenetics, the mechanisms and control...": is the second part of this sentence in addition to the first, or is it a clarification?
    • Clarification. I changed the wording a bit.512bits (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another remarkable work from Ancient Greece...": 'Another' is redundant; 'remarkable' seems unencyclopedic.
  • "Examples of elements that plants need to transport are nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and sulphur from the soil, transported in the xylem and sucrose produced by photosynthesis, which is transported in the phloem and plant hormones, transported by a variety of processes.": this sentence is pretty confusing at first. It is mixing elements, compunds and transport mechanisms in an unclear manner. Please rewrite it.
    • I have copy-edited this section extensively. I hope it addresses the issues.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few plants live in stable unchanging environments": this represents a change of topic and should probably start a new paragraph.
    • Done 512bits (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. But opening a new paragraph with it is only part of the problem. This looks like an orphan sentence that hopes to lead a topic, but in fact generates no useful information. I have removed it for now.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SEEALSO, some of the 'See also' links should instead be linked in the article. Flower, Tree, Plant community appear unlinked in the article. Seed, Botanical garden, and Evolutionary history of plants are already linked in the article so they can be removed from here.
  • The Porley and Hodgetts (2005) should be given the same format as the Renner and Ricklefs (1995) and other journal citations.
  • Some of the journal articles could be linked:
    • Morgensen (1996) has JSTOR 2446172
    • Savidan (2000) has doi:10.1002/9780470650158.ch2
    • Schell and Van Montagu (1977) has PMID 336023
    • Sobotka et a (2000) has PMID 11471754
    • Sprague (1939) has doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.1939.tb01598.x

I hope this was helpful. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Thank you. I'll start working on them. 512bits (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, very helpful and constructive. Please keep kicking (when you have time) until we get it right. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding 'epigenetics', the lead calls it one of the 'Dominant themes in 21st century plant science'. However, it does not appear to be covered in the 'Molecular genetics' section. Does it deserve a paragraph or two? Praemonitus (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, but it's rough right now. I'll ask Plantsurfer to improve that section.512bits (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Botany/archive1&oldid=790012666"