Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Peer reviews
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Peer Reviews)
| WikiProject Plants | |
|---|---|
| |
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom | Plantae |
| Project information | |
| Founded: | 20 August 2004 |
| Participants: | Active Editors |
| View All | |
| Shortcuts: | WP:PLANTS |
| WP:Plants | |
| Main page: | WikiProject Plants |
| Project subpages | |
| Tools | |
| Departments | |
| Resources | |
| How can you help? | |
| See also | |
The peer review department conducts peer reviews of articles upon request. Its purpose is to encourage better articles by having contributors collaborate and provide ideas on further improvement. This can also be used for an in-project review before nominating an article for featured article status.
Active reviewers
edit(Note: just sign the list to join, and don't forget to add this page to your watchlist.)
- --SB_Johnny|talk|books -- Mostly interested in garden plants and weeds.
- Circeus 18:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- NoahElhardt 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Requests
edit- Ornäs birch I’m on a phone and can’t do this properly. The English article claims ornäs birches have male flowers which contradicts the Swedish page and many Swedish sources. I’d like some help in fact checking the English article please. User:oskila 2001:2042:7C33:B700:2181:4F61:BEFC:E09E (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Macrozamia miquelii I am also a university student and I would love to get some feedback on the additions I made to the Macrozamia miquelii article. Thank you for your time! --Yames76 (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Trigonella suavissima I am a university student currently working on a wikipedia page editing project. Although an image of the species is still missing, I have added as much contents as I could. May I kindly request an assessment on my article? Thank you!--What7IWrote (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fontainea venosa: I have added some information to further improve the article as a part of my university project. The goal is to improve it to a C or B class. All constructive feedback or further information additions would be highly appreciated. Thank you so much! Sparklingkull (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ficinia nodosa: I am making additions to this page for a university project and would like feedback on the additions I have made as well as future additions I could make. Thanks. --Nagware (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Leaf spot: The article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. I have added more information to the sections since the upgrade from stub to C-Class and would like to request for a review/ revision of the class. Thankyou. --Savina Jo (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Inflorescence: It is listed as high importance and has changed so much recently, I'd like to get the most possible opinions because I'd like to see it B-rated (then possibly pass the GA nomination sooner or later) and because I had many doubts I'd like to solve when I chose to organise it that way. It would be very useful if I could get some opinions on the questions I put on the article's discussion. I'd like its accuracy to be checked by some experts, too (it was prised -private email- by a professional botanist from the SIUC, so I suppose it must have no major problems). So I request for an in-project peer review. Thank you Aelwyn 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Amaranthus tuberculatus: This is the first article I have written for wikipedia. I would like to know what I can do to improve it. Pruddle (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Amaranthus brownii: I'm getting ready to nominate this article as a good article and I would like some criticism. Please comment here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please could someone comment on whether there are other aspects of this genus which should be included? I have not at present included any notes on cultivars as I am only familiar with ones available in the UK and as there are very few accurate descriptions by those who named the individual cultivars, there is much mis-labelling & mis-identifcation. Saxifraga (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as for what to include in general, you may have seen it, but there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template which includes topics which are nice to include. There's also Rodgersia in Flora of China, although the article already seems to have much of that information. Kingdon (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll check through that template & see whether I have anything useful to add.Saxifraga (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- List of palms of the Caribbean - at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of palms of the Caribbean
- Pinguicula moranensis - at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pinguicula moranensis/archive1
- Verbascum thapsus - at Wikipedia:Peer review/Verbascum thapsus/archive1
- Acanthomintha duttonii - removed from GA nominations due to extensive problems with article. Will add some comments to its talk page. KP Botany 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Betulaceae
- Boraginaceae (No apomorphies/characteristics described)
- Cannabaceae (This one is ridiculous!)
- Crassulaceae (No gereral characteristics/apomorpies described)
- Cucurbitaceae (Too short for such an economically important family)
- Cyperaceae (No photos, no apomrphies... Nothing!)
- Fabaceae (No description, we need a picture to describe the flower of Faboideae -I could take it if it wasn't winter!-; Papilionaceae redirects to Fabaceae, shouldn't it redirect to Faboidea?)
- Fagaceae (No apomorphies)
- Malvaceae (Edit war about taxonomy, needs to be rewritten, more about morphology)
- Polygonaceae (No apomorphies described, no pictures)
- Rosaceae (Much about taxonomy but no apomorphies/characteristics)
- Rubiaceae
- Salicaceae (Ok, it's always like that: no apomorphies, no general characteristics, no photos...)
- Scrophulariaceae
- Violaceae (is this an article or a stub?)
- Urticaceae KP Botany 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
stub?)