Wikipedia:Peer review/Carnivorous plant/archive1

Carnivorous plant edit

This article has been thoroughly scrubbed by some good people, and appears to fit the criteria for featured article status. CodeCarpenter 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick scan-through, and two things need to be addressed:

While the article has a fair number of inline citations (~18), more are needed, especially in the first half of the article.
The lead section is short, and should be expanded to two or three paragraphs.

I'll try and do a more thorough read through tomorrow and start addressing these issues. --NoahElhardt 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this sentence seems to be missing something (at least I am confused):

The stalked glands that once made it (and are so evident in Drosera) have become the teeth and trigger hairs - an example of natural selection hijacking preexisting structures for new functions.

The use of conventional is confusing in this sentence, later we find out that conventional for carnivorous plants is what it means.

The more carnivorous a plant is, the more conventional its habitat is likely to be.

Why are there no completely carnivourous plants - that get their energy from eating animals, after all there are parasitic plants. Are there any parasitic plants that can sprout on an animal and digest it? (curious) GB 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]