Wikipedia:Peer review/Pinguicula moranensis/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Pinguicula moranensis

Pinguicula moranensis

I wrote this article last week. This species is probably the most taxanomically challenging one in the genus, and this article is the only thorough overview of this species in the English language. Nearly every work ever published on this species is integrated somewhere. I would appreciate:

  • A stylistic review that would help me polish this article for FA candidacy and
  • A scientific review, particularly of the section on phylogenetics, a subject I understand little of. I've tried to summarize pertinent phylogenetic studies, but I was only able to make somewhat vague conclusions.

Thanks in advance for any help. --NoahElhardt 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per
    [?]
  • See if possible if there is a
    [?]
  • Per
    [?]
  • Per
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words unless they are proper nouns
    or the first word of the heading.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • Watch for
    redundancy exercises
    .)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
    [?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a very nice article; you've done an excellent job, and the pictures are great. Some suggestions:
  • The lead is a bit dense with plant terms that will be unfamiliar to outsiders, some of which aren't wikilinked: succulent, mucilaginous, etc. Similarly, is "substrate" the soil, or is there a more specific meaning? I'm not sure that the various redefinitions of the species need to be in the lead, or at least not with the names mentioned in such detail. The lead should summarize the whole article, so less history and more "other stuff" would be better - for example, mention the distinct summer and winter rosettes.
  • The images near the beginning of the article, especially after the 'winter rosette' section, appear rather crowded.
  • Are you referring to the image illustrating the 'Winter rosette' section, the the ones in the following 'Flowers' section? I selected the three flower images because I wanted to show both the external anatomy/morphology of the flower, as well as the unusual variability that exists in the species.
Yes, those are the ones - the images themselves are well chosen; they just lay out awkwardly. However, take this with a grain of salt - I usually browse at very high resolution, so it looks like there's not enough text to fill around all the images. I looked at it at 1600x1200 and it looks okay. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same 'plant jargon' as in the lead comes up in the text: phrases like "obovate leaves", which have a clearly defined meaning, could use an appositive explanation.
  • I can't avoid some morphological terms in the morphology section, but I think I've linked them all now.
Point taken :) Much better. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a biochemist, I'd like to see more on the enzymes involved in carnivory, especially if there's anything unique about those expressed in this species or genus.
The enzymes are a genus-wide characteristic, and so more detail is probably not appropriate for this article. The paper from which I got the list of enzymes didn't cite sources, but I'll try to dig some more information up for you and add it to the Pinguicula article. NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some context would be useful for the 'great variation' in flower color and morphology; I'm not a botanist and I see a bunch of similar-looking pinkish-purple flowers. The caption to this figure would be more helpful if it pointed out some of the flowers' specific traits that vary. Is it unusual for a single species' flower color to vary this much? What about the size?
  • I've added information to the caption. Unless you look closely, you WILL only see similar-looking flowers. But in most plant populations you look at, flowers will look generally the same or have really minor differences even if you DO look closely.
That's more useful, I think. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is a cultivated plant, is it important or relevant in local culture? Grown outside of Mexico for any reason? Has its wild habitat been altered or threatened in any way by local development?
I haven't ever read or heard of known cultural relevance. It is grown outside of Mexico horticulturally (mainly by carnivorous plant hobbyists), as stated in the "Cultivation" section. Since it is a widespread plant, grows mainly in mountainous areas, and colonizes disturbed areas such as road cuts, the survival of the species has not been threatened by development. There isn't really any data that I can use in the article, since nobody has bothered to investigate the impact of development.NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I had the impression that a lot of carnivorous plants were threatened or endangered. Shows what I know. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That impression was correct - you are more informed than most folks out there. The reason for this is that many carnivorous plants grow in wetlands, which in developing countries are usually drained to make room for development. Other CP's (such as Sarracenia oreophila and Nepenthes rajah) have such a limited distribution that any development in the area would threaten their survival. (Check out the timeline at the bottom of the N. rajah article btw. It is hidden by default but can be expanded using the "show" link. That's what I had in mind for the parsimony trees.) NoahElhardt 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fairly common impression. Maybe it'd be worth a sentence to mention that unlike some other carnivorous plants, this one's habitat is not threatened by development?
I can try, but as I've mentioned, I don't really have any data/sources to back that up. Does stating that it isn't endangered inferred from its known large distribution and habitat preference count as original research? Or can I say it isn't endangered just based on the fact that it doesn't show up on the IUCN Red List? -NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think not on the red list would be enough. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the phylogenetic trees - I'm not sure about hiding them by default unless they're so big that they can't fit in the article with the text. I'd either put a combined diagram or choose one tree that is from the most notable/authoritative/widely accepted study. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the hangup: I really can't quite tell which diagram is most authoritative because I don't understand the studies behind them well enough. As far as being widely accepted, its hard to tell at this point; one was published in 2001 and the other in 2005. I'll do a more thorough read through of the articles this weekend and see if I can get some kind of feel for how they were set up differently, how exactly their results differ, and how best to summarize that in a NPOV way. -NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you expand on the descriptions of the cultivars? This information might be better presented in a table.
  • I can expand in some cases. Good idea on the table - I'll work on converting it into one.
  • The references need a bit of formatting work; there's some in the refs list that aren't in the notes. It'd be better to have separate sections for 'cited references' and 'further reading'. Opabinia regalis 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes only list inline citations. I listed some of the references because they provided background information during my research or because an the publication was mentioned in the text. In the history sections, I mentioned authors who had published various species or taxanomic works. I only inline cited my source of that historical information, but then listed the original publications in the references. Is there a better way to do this? Should these publications be inline cited as well, even though I haven't (and can't) actually read most of them?
I usually see people list the ones they didn't directly cite in a subsection like "general references". But I rarely use that style - maybe something to ask User:SandyGeorgia, she's the resident FAC reference expert. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't addressed all your points yet, I'll get to the rest tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to review the article - I appreciate it. NoahElhardt 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also read the phylogenetics section in a bit more detail - it'd be nice to know the morphological characteristics that produced the most distinctions/were most informative in classifying species from the studies that used morphological data. The phrase "providing evidence for a genetically-based taxonomic structure" isn't clear; molecular data always produces "genetically based" taxonomies. I don't know if you have this data, but it would be clearer if you had images of the major studies' final phylogenetic trees. Also - maybe there's still a need for more wikilinks - I'm not sure what the distinctions are between a group of "varieties" and a "complex".
I have three different trees I could use for the article, but since they give different results and I don't want to (a) clutter the article or (b) make a judgement call (POV) on which tree is most accurate without a much better understanding of both studies involved, I'd rather leave them out for now. Should I add at least two of them though and make them collapsed so that they don't clutter? NoahElhardt 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; what do you mean by 'make them collapsed'? Depending how different they are, maybe you could make a combined diagram that shows the major points of agreement between the three as well as the alternative placements of this particular species. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly - you often include in the text the names of the individual scientists who did the research you're citing. Unless the researchers themselves are notable, or the study is well-known by the authors' name, just use an inline citation and leave the names to the references; it makes the text easier to read. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read through those sections with that in mind - you are probably right in that I could drop several names.
I have one question: Several of the publications I referenced ARE available online, but I am somewhat hesitant to link to them since they are on a page marked "You are in a restricted area, publications are for a private use only as needed material for [name of webpage]". Nevertheless, I'd like readers/reviewers to be able to look up the original sources as much as possible. Your thoughts? NoahElhardt 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell without looking at the site - maybe just include it as an external link, and mention that it hosts reprints of the papers? (Assuming it has permission to host them and they're freely available.) It's become common in bio FAs to include PubMed IDs for references to papers; if the journals you're citing are indexed in PubMed (or a similar database), that would be a useful set of links. Also someone will ask you to include ISBNs for the book sources, most likely. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site probably does not have permission to host them. Here's the link to the parent site [1], and the page itself [2]. NoahElhardt 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't link to a site that is redistributing content without permission, but linking to PubMed or an equivalent database, if one exists, is convenient for readers. Alternatively link directly to the journal, with a note if they're open-access or pay sites. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this have an English name as well as a scientific one? Or several English names? Goldfritha 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Although I was able to find one website listing the common name "Mexican Butterwort", this is a generic name widely applied to all (or most) butterworts native to Mexico (>30 species). Since it is both ambiguous and not in common usage (botanists and hobbyists alike refer to it by the latin name), I didn't list the common name. --NoahElhardt 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be wise to add a note to the effect that it doesn't have a general agreed English name. I wondered why it wasn't there -- a note would make it clear that it's not a hole in the article. Goldfritha 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that subject, is there a common name in Spanish? Opabinia regalis 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've run across. I'll add a footnote to that effect shortly.--NoahElhardt 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick glance makes me notice paragraphs that are *far* too long (Under "Habits", which is actualy only one paragraph! and "Leaves and carnivory"), and I'm in 1080 resolution. I can't even begin to think what they look like at 800.Circeus 15:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Pinguicula_moranensis/archive1&oldid=1138564648"