Talk:Drosera anglica
northern hemisphere, originated from a hybrid involving a plant with localized distribution in the Great Lakes area? | |
| Current status: Good article | |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's carnivorous plants. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 | This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance). | |
GA review
It looks good - just a couple of minor suggestions before it fully meets the
1. could an explanation of 'thigmatropic' and 'amphiploid' be added?
- I added a short explanation of 'thigmotropic'. 'Amphiploid' is explained in the last paragraph, but the word appears twice before then. Should I add an explanation earlier?
- Yes, I think an explanation on its first use would be good.
- Done! --NoahElhardt 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think an explanation on its first use would be good.
- I added a short explanation of 'thigmotropic'. 'Amphiploid' is explained in the last paragraph, but the word appears twice before then. Should I add an explanation earlier?
2. should the 'citations' section not be called 'references'?
- Should it? Okay, fixed.
3. consider whether a gallery is really essential? Commons is more the place for image galleries.
- Plant articles really benefit from relevant image galleries imo. Plant identification depends on a good feel for plant morphology, which is best communicated through pictures. Most users won't know to look in the commons. People who want to know what the flower looks like, for instance, will usually not think to look in the commons for a picture. These images are all relevant to the text, but the article is really to small to integrate them all. I do agree that more than four pictures in a gallery for this size of article would be overkill. See another example of a (more extensive) gallery used in Nepenthes rajah. --NoahElhardt 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK then, that seems like a very reasonable use of a gallery. Worldtraveller 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Plant articles really benefit from relevant image galleries imo. Plant identification depends on a good feel for plant morphology, which is best communicated through pictures. Most users won't know to look in the commons. People who want to know what the flower looks like, for instance, will usually not think to look in the commons for a picture. These images are all relevant to the text, but the article is really to small to integrate them all. I do agree that more than four pictures in a gallery for this size of article would be overkill. See another example of a (more extensive) gallery used in Nepenthes rajah. --NoahElhardt 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Worldtraveller 14:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it meets
Sterile hybrid did what?
These words appear in the header: "sterile hybrid between these two species doubled its chromosomes to produce fertile progeny". Is this jargon I don't grok, or is this nonsense? How does a sterile hybrid double its chromosomes? How does a sterile anything do anything with chromosomes? How does a sterile anything produce progeny (fertile or not)? I'm no botanist, but I think the intent is that the hybrid is normally sterile, but an polyploid hybrid was fertile, and led to this species. — Randall Bart (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- A sterile hybrid obviously cannot normally produce progeny. Producing double the chromosomes during pollen and ovule production, however, can allow fertilization to take place. Its explained in more depth in the final paragraph of the article. The original intro just listed the plant as being amphidiploid, but I was requested to explain the term there, for which a sentence doesn't really suffice. --NoahElhardt 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)