Comments requested on this article that I was asked to write by the chap who began most of the carnivorous plants articles. I did make an effort: a poor librarian in Bristol was practically bent double under the pile of books I requested from the basement. After I couldn't find suitable public domain photos I waded into numerous ponds in search of samples, and I even sketched a couple of diagrams myself where the article seemed to warrant them. For those not intimately acquainted with literature on carnivorous plants, please take my word for it that references 1, 2, 4, and 5 are acknowledged leading authorities on this subject. Genuine advice sought on how to bring this to FA standard, if the subject is of sufficient intrinsic interest to get it there. I've an idea it needs more, but I've reached the limit of what value I can add without outside suggestions. Many thanks to anyone who offers their opinion, ~ Veledan • Talk + new 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Great article on an interesting topic- the content is all there, but it could use some work in the organization.
- Taxobox would probably be better with a more general pic that gives an impression of the whole plant, like Image:Uk pond bladderwort.jpg
- The lead is too long- try and cut it back to three paragraphs that adequately summaries the topic. For example the etymology details in the lead could be moved to the description part of the article.
- This template was suggested for plants - which is not perfect or universally applicable, but I think the description should come before the distribution details.
- The article doens't explicitly mention how they reproduce.
- Some people don't like numbered figures, you may want to get rid of the numbers and make sure the figure has a good descriptive caption and is described adequately in the text
- Do the plants have any value to humans, are they edible or have they been investigated for medicinal properties? Are they an inportant food source in aquatic ecosystems?
- There was a recent phylogenetic study, which might be of interest for expanding the species section, the ref is PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION 250 (1-2): 39-67 JAN 2005; if you'd like the pdf email me. Similarly there was a recent article about digestive enzymes NEW PHYTOLOGIST 159 (3): 669-675 SEP 2003
Hope that give you some ideas.--nixie 02:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wow thanks for being so specific and for giving me so many pointers! I have to admit I wasn't even aware of the existence of that template. Numbers 1-5 I can work on this morning, number 6 will see me back in the library and number 7 - I'll mail you right away :-). Again, many thanks ~ Veledan • Talk + new 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Follow-on question: although I'm going to try to find out for sure later, I already suspect the answer to number 6 is no, no, no and no. I can see the article needs to answer the questions, but how to flesh it out and reference negative statements? So far no studies appear to have been conducted... (shudder) ~ Veledan • Talk + new 06:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- If the anwser to 6 is no, no, no, just leave them out.--nixie 09:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
OK -
- Many paragraphs too short
- Intro should be 3 good size paragraphs rather than 7 medium-size ones
- "This is a strange genus:" - POV.... "unlike some others" would be more nuetral for example
- "Physical description" - no section intro
- "Trapping mechanism" - no section intro
- "Species" - too short
- "Image (Fig.2)" - first sentence of caption should try to sum up what it is rather than explain it
I echo everything nixie said too. Good work - looong article for such an obscure thing! Kudos! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I now have a workplan :-)
Thanks to you both; these are the pointers I was hoping for in coming here. As promised, I spent this afternoon in the library and I'm about to start work again. I'll implement everything suggested as best I can. First, a couple of specific points I wanted to mention:
- Nixie:
- 1. A pity the pond pic I took isn't better but it's too late in the year for me to get another. UK bladderworts are now just rotting brown strings with turions on the end :-/
- 4. Glad you pointed me in this direction. It turns out that bladderwort flowering habits are as weird and inconsistent as anything else about them. I look forward to adding the details.
- 6. Mostly going to be left out. You wouldn't believe what detailed studies have been done on these plants (actually, you probably would, considering the two studies you sent me :-)). For example: their seeds have been tracked across oceans, presumably carried on the feet of birds. But nothing re the above categories has been mentioned. I will check CITES listings etc as a final bid before beginning the writing though.
- 7. Thanks for these studies. You have access to a pretty impressive information store!
- Ryan:
- 3. Thanks for picking that up. I'll look at my sources again and choose between neutralising it or substituting an attributed paraphrase. I've come back from today's library visit with some great quotes, including one or two from Darwin himself.
- - When you say 'loong article' do you mean too long? It may get a little longer in restructuring, though condensing paragraphs where I can will counter the effect a bit.
Is it OK for me to come back and say and invite more comments when I'm done? It may take me a day or two to restructure the article because I'm away for the weekend and will only have occasional computer access.
Cheers again, ~ Veledan • Talk + new 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course :) - these things typically last for two weeks to a month depending on when we respond :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm delisting this for now even though I'm only half way through making the amendments to the page because I'm on a more or less unavoidable wikibreak (new job, new bosses to impress) and have very little energy left for editing. Thanks to you guys for your help, and I will finish the work when I feel capable. ~ Veledan • Talk + new 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)