This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Flowering plant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Flowering plant has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 31, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
The lead section is too "technical." I get the feeling that the target audience and the authors are biologists, not written for the general population. Decades ago I could identify every wildflower in the Sierra National Forest but I still don't know what an angiosperm is after reading the lead section. I suspect the reason is people are using lazy links rather than plain English to make their descriptions, but I don't know since I generally don't follow those damn blue rabbit hole links.
I suggest a sentence or two of examples of what is and what isn't an angiosperm that normal people could relate to, such as grasses, pine trees, pecan trees, which all have flowers but what does flowering mean here anyway? And not mean.
Possibly even better, or in conjunction with, —would be taking hard effort to write good plain prose, which again: is difficult. In general, inline links should be used for supplemental information not the replacement of (time consuming) explanatory writing. You guys all know this.
--Doug Bashford
2607:FB91:1F01:411A:484F:EEFF:FE7C:1EE9 (
talk)
19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include the 2009 APG III phylogeny? Plantsurfer 14:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The lead image of 12 of over 300,000 species indicates that all angiosperms are ... insect-pollinated herbs. This doesn't accurately reflect the diversity of the group. Even if we're ignoring "basal" groups like Amborella, which would certainly emphasize the diversity, we should include a woody plant and a wind-pollinated one (I guess a grass is the obvious choice) for morphological diversity. Or perhaps we should have one each of Amborellales, Nymphaeales, Austrobaileyales, magnoliids, Chloranthales, monocots, Ceratophyllales, and eudicots to represent the phylogenetic diversity. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Plantsurfer, I think we're starting to get this article into shape, by which I mean, that it is starting to give the ordinary reader some inkling of what a flowering plant actually is, how varied different species are, and how they work in ecological, evolutionary, and physiological terms. The whole thing read as if someone thought the article ought to be about academic botany c. 1923 (or possibly 1823), so it's advancing towards the 21st century. It's still terribly heavy on taxonomy, classification, systematics, and phylo...(reader falls asleep). I'm just wondering, too, why we still have long chunks on anatomy, followed (much later) by chunks on physiology --- perhaps we can merge those into a discussion of how a plant functions. I'm also getting rid of the uncited stuff (including refs to whole books with no page numbers, hmm), so perhaps merging structure and function will help there too. Thoughts? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Chiswick Chap and Plantsurfer: is there any reason why the article doesn't follow the general pattern of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template? I would certainly expect some kind of description to come first, explaining what angiosperms/flowering plants actually are, rather than starting with diversity. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I suspect there are several others. Feel free to add to the list, and to comment on what we should do about these specimens. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I felt that the old image was more attractive than the way the speciesbox has been made to look now. Originally it was a tidier image, attractive to look at too. If you scrolled over the flowering plants link anywhere you'd originally see a very pleasant image showcasing a lot of different attractive flowers in a uniform grid format. I'm not sure when this edit occurred, but somewhere down the line the speciesbox was altered to cram in lots of individual picture files and species names. The result is a messy and cluttered looking speciesbox that doesn't look good.
This was the old speciesbox image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Flower_poster_2.jpg/800px-Flower_poster_2.jpg
The original image was tidy, uniformed and pleasant to look at, which is a stark contrast to the current messy, uneven pictures. I feel as though it should be changed back. Although the multiple photos used currently do show a lot of diversity, it just doesn't look professional or pleasant on the eye in my honest opinion.
I'm going to prepose the original picture is reinstated. JarroNevsbaru ( talk) 22:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor has seen fit to split out the conservation sub-section, with the rubric "I am lifting this up to main level heading and added "threats". I think otherwise it is too hidden under the euphemistic "interactions with humans". Also some of the threats could be from other things. e.g. climate change is caused by humans but the effects of climate change are not really "interactions with humans". If needed, could discuss on talk page?)". A bold move. Well, we are obliged by the WP:NPOV policy – not just a guideline – to be scrupulously neutral, in headings as well as in text, no "euphemistic" about it. It's far from "hidden", it's a boldfaced section heading, right there in the Table of Contents and in the text too. Conservation is 100% human activity; the threats it deals with are both caused by humans, whether directly by spraying pesticides or hunting, or (slightly) indirectly by destroying habitat and trashing the climate, resulting in human-caused damage to plants and their environment. Further, the article is about 'Flowering plant', which is a taxon; that involves describing the taxon's biology, i.e. its features, diversity, and evolution; and on the side, non-taxon detail, the ways that humans have made use of these plants, or done harm to them. The article recently passed formal review with this simple, clear, and logical structure, including this plainly subsidiary section. I'll put it back now. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Flowering plant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Flowering plant has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 31, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
The lead section is too "technical." I get the feeling that the target audience and the authors are biologists, not written for the general population. Decades ago I could identify every wildflower in the Sierra National Forest but I still don't know what an angiosperm is after reading the lead section. I suspect the reason is people are using lazy links rather than plain English to make their descriptions, but I don't know since I generally don't follow those damn blue rabbit hole links.
I suggest a sentence or two of examples of what is and what isn't an angiosperm that normal people could relate to, such as grasses, pine trees, pecan trees, which all have flowers but what does flowering mean here anyway? And not mean.
Possibly even better, or in conjunction with, —would be taking hard effort to write good plain prose, which again: is difficult. In general, inline links should be used for supplemental information not the replacement of (time consuming) explanatory writing. You guys all know this.
--Doug Bashford
2607:FB91:1F01:411A:484F:EEFF:FE7C:1EE9 (
talk)
19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include the 2009 APG III phylogeny? Plantsurfer 14:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The lead image of 12 of over 300,000 species indicates that all angiosperms are ... insect-pollinated herbs. This doesn't accurately reflect the diversity of the group. Even if we're ignoring "basal" groups like Amborella, which would certainly emphasize the diversity, we should include a woody plant and a wind-pollinated one (I guess a grass is the obvious choice) for morphological diversity. Or perhaps we should have one each of Amborellales, Nymphaeales, Austrobaileyales, magnoliids, Chloranthales, monocots, Ceratophyllales, and eudicots to represent the phylogenetic diversity. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Plantsurfer, I think we're starting to get this article into shape, by which I mean, that it is starting to give the ordinary reader some inkling of what a flowering plant actually is, how varied different species are, and how they work in ecological, evolutionary, and physiological terms. The whole thing read as if someone thought the article ought to be about academic botany c. 1923 (or possibly 1823), so it's advancing towards the 21st century. It's still terribly heavy on taxonomy, classification, systematics, and phylo...(reader falls asleep). I'm just wondering, too, why we still have long chunks on anatomy, followed (much later) by chunks on physiology --- perhaps we can merge those into a discussion of how a plant functions. I'm also getting rid of the uncited stuff (including refs to whole books with no page numbers, hmm), so perhaps merging structure and function will help there too. Thoughts? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Chiswick Chap and Plantsurfer: is there any reason why the article doesn't follow the general pattern of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template? I would certainly expect some kind of description to come first, explaining what angiosperms/flowering plants actually are, rather than starting with diversity. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I suspect there are several others. Feel free to add to the list, and to comment on what we should do about these specimens. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I felt that the old image was more attractive than the way the speciesbox has been made to look now. Originally it was a tidier image, attractive to look at too. If you scrolled over the flowering plants link anywhere you'd originally see a very pleasant image showcasing a lot of different attractive flowers in a uniform grid format. I'm not sure when this edit occurred, but somewhere down the line the speciesbox was altered to cram in lots of individual picture files and species names. The result is a messy and cluttered looking speciesbox that doesn't look good.
This was the old speciesbox image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Flower_poster_2.jpg/800px-Flower_poster_2.jpg
The original image was tidy, uniformed and pleasant to look at, which is a stark contrast to the current messy, uneven pictures. I feel as though it should be changed back. Although the multiple photos used currently do show a lot of diversity, it just doesn't look professional or pleasant on the eye in my honest opinion.
I'm going to prepose the original picture is reinstated. JarroNevsbaru ( talk) 22:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor has seen fit to split out the conservation sub-section, with the rubric "I am lifting this up to main level heading and added "threats". I think otherwise it is too hidden under the euphemistic "interactions with humans". Also some of the threats could be from other things. e.g. climate change is caused by humans but the effects of climate change are not really "interactions with humans". If needed, could discuss on talk page?)". A bold move. Well, we are obliged by the WP:NPOV policy – not just a guideline – to be scrupulously neutral, in headings as well as in text, no "euphemistic" about it. It's far from "hidden", it's a boldfaced section heading, right there in the Table of Contents and in the text too. Conservation is 100% human activity; the threats it deals with are both caused by humans, whether directly by spraying pesticides or hunting, or (slightly) indirectly by destroying habitat and trashing the climate, resulting in human-caused damage to plants and their environment. Further, the article is about 'Flowering plant', which is a taxon; that involves describing the taxon's biology, i.e. its features, diversity, and evolution; and on the side, non-taxon detail, the ways that humans have made use of these plants, or done harm to them. The article recently passed formal review with this simple, clear, and logical structure, including this plainly subsidiary section. I'll put it back now. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)