User talk:Pamarasinghe 10/sandbox

Species List suggestions:

   Edited list to contain 3 columns instead of 1. Shortens the overall page length and improves aesthetics.
   #162 didn't have a link -- wasn't sure if there was a reason (Memecylon fasciculare (Planch. ex Benth.) Naudin) 

Lboat (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Edited scientific classification using Taxobox: NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK CLASSIFICATION -- I surmised using suffices. Also, consider adding more to Taxobox -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Taxobox/doc#Complete_blank_template For instance, the 'diversity' template could be used for the map showing distribution. Also, common names provided in the Etymology section could be moved to Taxobox 'Synonyms' section.

Distribution: 'are listed in Figure.' -- feels like this needs either a figure title or 'see right.' Something to indicate the figure, as there are technically two figures on the page.

Phylogeny: Has a big block quote that would look nicer broken up. Maybe introduce subsections?

Ecology: Probably needs to be expanded or removed, as it's pretty short.

Ethanobotany: 'This tree is not only beautiful but also useful.' -- beautiful is subjective, though I agree. It might be nice to have a numbered set of it's uses, as this section contains several short sentences to that effect.

Overall, it looks great. I might add a few more internal links to other wikipedia pages. You've done this, but I really like having a lot of those links. Also, several sections could use more information, but I know the same applies to my page... So, take that as you will. Lboat (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Prabha, I made a few little edits to your sandbox. I hope that helps a bit. It looks really good. Some of the terms could probably use defining for a non-specialist audience, especially in the descriptions of the morphology, or link to the pages describing those terms. For the phylogenetisc section, I think it might be helpful to put some dates in the text so that the reader has an idea of when each of those classifications was published or accepted. Otherwise, I think it looks really good. Benthiccurtains (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Emily

Emilysessa (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This page is really beautiful, you've done a great job!

There are quite a few places where you could add links to other Wikipedia articles; your peer reviewer suggested the same, lots of nouns for example in the description sections are words that might have their own articles. Please have a read through the page and see if you can add some more of these internal links.

Under distribution, can you say more about what types of habitats they live in? Currently you just say a wide range, but is that everything from savannahs to deserts to rain forests? Are individual species' ranges small or large? Is there a lot of overlap between ranges of different species?

Under phylogeny, the first large paragraph could be broken up a bit into different paragraphs, as it's quite long, just to give some more structure. It might also be worth separating more traditional morphological treatments from molecular-based treatments.

The caption for the map is a bit long - I would recommend that instead, you include this information in a table that goes in the Distribution section. You can leave the map colored in, but maybe remove the numbers, since if you have a table listing area names, people should be able to find them on the map too. Particularly in southeast Asia, it's also really difficult to tell what the numbers are referring to specifically, since there are so many of them. You could also maybe see if you can make a map where it uses different colors depending on what the number is - like a heatmap, where the color is more red if it has higher numbers of species, and more towards blue with lower numbers. I don't know if that's at all possible, and I realize you put a lot of effort into making this map, which I appreciate! Just a suggestion for something that might make it a little easier to tell what's going on, but you certainly don't have to do this if it would be difficult or impossible.

The Ethnobotany section seems like it needs a few more citations, several sentences make factual statements that need a citation reference to support them.

Overall, really nice job!!