Wikipedia:Peer review/Nepenthes rajah/archive1

Nepenthes rajah[edit]

I have been working on this article on and off for several months. It is already a "good article" and has appeared on the main page under Did you know?. However, I would like to hear suggestions on how it could be improved further (with the ultimate goal of getting it to featured article standard). Thanks. Mgiganteus1 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite good and you've done good research. With a little polish you'll have a sure successful FAC. Issues: 1) The prose is fairly choppy in parts. It's particularly noticeable in some of the short paragraphs that don't define a full idea. Either merge them or expand a bit. 2) I don't think the origin of the name is the most important thing about the topic and that makes up 2/3 of the first lead paragraph. Start the lead with the most important information and work down, summarizing the whole article ideally in a balanced way. 2) The tone of the first two paragraphs in cultivation notes are too chatty and uses weazeling instead of just stating facts. The rest of the section is well cited, so just re do those two paragraphs to state the facts on the cultivation. Cultivation is probably a better section title anyway. Wikipedia isn't for giving advice. - Taxman ^Talk 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to look at the WP:PLANTS guidelines. Also, numerous identical refs are not combined, and there are several empty(!) ones. The conservation status link in the infobox doesn't work. The Gallery section should be titled as such. Also, that tiny-bitsy text for the captions? Normal size will do just fine. The current title led me to believe you were discussing the ecology of the species. ~~References normally go before footnotes~~ (apparently they don't necessarily), and are in full, not reduced size. If you're going to discuss etymology at lenght, you might as well make it into a short section of its own and include the genus name. Especially since it's a bit confusing (at first I spent a good 30 seconds trying to figure which part of James Brooke's name was used for the naming).

Prose issues:

was named in honoubir
the tendril joins the on the underside of the lamina
- Missing word
The huge urn-shaped lower pitchers of Nepenthes rajah are unmistakable and for this reason it is easy to distinguish it from all other Bornean Nepenthes species.
- ~~That's pretty peacock to me. I'd state plainly that, say, it's the only bornean pitcher plant to have red pitchers, or whatever.~~ Okay, what follows in the two next paragraphs is actually the description of what is unique to the plant, but that reads as only duplicating the description that directly precedes it. I'd start off by saying something along the lines of "Only N. rajah displays..." and making it clearer when that part ends, e.g. a single paragraph.
The last paragraph under "Plant characteristics" is a strange collection of disparate information.
Botanical Description of Nepenthes rajah is not a proper Wikipedia:Summary style article. It is barely longer than the section that is supposed to summarize it. It also ispoorly presented and uncategorized.
It seems to flower at any time of year and hybrids between [...]
- The comment about flowering does not belong here, unless it is linked to the factthe species hybridize easily, and the link is not madein the text.
The description of all these hybrids is Off-topic. Keep only the taxonomic relations and changes in them, move the rest to the appropriate articles.
It's likely all of these described hybrids have names of their own, they should be given if at all posible.
While both Harvard and footnote citations are accepted, please choose a single system and stick to it!

Circeus 22:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your suggestions and criticisms into account and will make the necessary changes. Regarding the Botanical Description of Nepenthes rajah article: I originally placed this on Wikisource, but apparently it does not belong there, so I was advised to move it to wikipedia. The reason it is "barely longer than the section that is supposed to summarize it" is that I have added a lot of general information on Nepenthes to the main article (e.g. what parts of the plant different terms refer to) to make it easier to understand for the layperson. The botanical description, on the other hand, only deals with specific characteristics of this species. It is important that this article is not removed, in my opinion, as it has very detailed inormation that I am certain is not available anywhere else on the internet

If the article does not actually expand on the content of the section, then it is not necessary. You should get it speedy deleted as article creator. Circeus 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does expand on the content of the main section, immensely. Simply compare the two. The botanical description includes very detailed information on every aspect of the plant's morphology with specific measurements given for each. The two sections cover the same thing but one is aimed at the average reader while the other would be more useful to a researcher or someone looking for a very specific bit of info. Mgiganteus1 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stand. Wikipedia is supposed to be reasonably useful to the layman as much as the specialist, but this is too minute information, and as such does not really belong on Wikipedia. Circeus 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "minute". I have used several sources to write it and, as I said before, it is the most detailed description you will find anywhere. Period. I do not want to delete it, as it would be very useful for a researcher and as such is an important supplement to the article. However, I would like to know where I can put it. I have tried wikisource, but it is not a direct quote from a publication, so it does not belong there. Any suggestions? Mgiganteus1 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's likely all of these described hybrids have names of their own" - they don't. The two that do are mentioned already. Regarding citations: I'm in the process of switching them over right now. Should be done soon. Thanks. Mgiganteus1 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is very peculiar. Several paragraphs in the "Cultivation" section are not displayed even though they are present in the code (i.e. you will see them if you go to "edit this page"). Some help in sorting out this issue would be much appreciated. It was an issue with the ref tags. I have sorted it out. Mgiganteus1 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thereare still numerous identical Clarke refs that should be combined. Circeus 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed that now. Mgiganteus1 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]