Talk:Chasmogamy
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): As701914. Peer reviewers: As701914.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Some Incorrect Information and Layout Suggestions[edit]
Chasmogamy is presented as a "botanical term describing a type of flower", however, this is not accurate. Chasmogamy is a reproductive method that utilizes chasmogamous flowers. Chasmogamous is what refers to the actual flower type. I think it would be beneficial to explain this.
The first paragraph states that "the flower undergoes cross-pollination". However, this isn't always true, as chasmogamous flowers do self-fertilize. This is mentioned at the bottom, second to last paragraph of the article, but I think it is confusing to have the two remarks separated instead of stating in one sentence that chasmogamous flowers are capable of both cross-pollinating and self-fertilization.
Also, chasmogamous flowers do provide pollen to other chasmogamous flowers, but the article does not specify that this pollen is received by chasmogamous flowers of the same species. It just states that pollen is provided to other "plants". I think making this distinction (eg. chasmogamous flowers also provide pollen to other chasmogamous flowers of the same species via pollinators) would aid in the overall understanding.
There are a few typos in the article that make it hard to read. An example is in paragraph three, "cleistogamy is favored is stressful conditions...".
The fourth reference is never cited in the text, and thus it is not possible to figure it out what information was obtained from that particular source. This is plagiarism.
In general, I think the article's organization and formatting leads to the content being unclear and misleading. I also think that more content is needed to properly present the subject.
My major suggestions for this article would adding more content on chasmogamous flowers and changing the layout by dividing the article into subheadings of material. Each subheading could describe one major topic of chasmogamous flowers. Some example subheadings include: morphology, history (who discovered it, how was it named), modes of fertilization, advantages/disadvantages (genetic diversity vs. requiring large resources), etc.
Introducing cleistogamy information in the very beginning and in the body of the main article takes away from the real subject matter of chasmogamous flowers. There is also too much cleistogamous content relative to chasmogamous (approximately 45% of the article is dedicated to information on cleistogamous flowers). I do think presenting cleistogamous flowers as a contrast to chasmogamous ones is informative and significant, but I think that cleistogamy should be presented at the end of the article and in much less detail than the chasmogamous content. For example, cleistogamy could be the last subheading and provide brief structural and ecological differences as well as a link leading a separate cleistogamy wikipedia page containing more information. As701914 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)