Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Lead:
Description:
Reproduction:
Photobiont:
Distribution and habitat:
Chemical compounds:
Factually accurate and verifiable:
Neutrality:
No content dispute:
Images:
Placing it on hold. Narayanese ( talk) 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly better now. Shame about removing the sentence about regeneration though, it was an interesting tidbit (but it didn't belong in the reproduction section) Sorry about clades (appearantly L. pulmonaria isn't necessarily that related to other Lobaria species ( http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/3/449)), I meant taxonomic groups, like Fungi and Lobaria in the taxobox. The citation normally goes at the end of the name field.
Various suggestions outside of GA review:
Narayanese ( talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Another thing: if the taxobox/taxonomy doesn't reflect phylogeny, then the article should say so. Narayanese ( talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't object to my placement a phylogeny ref in the taxobox, I will pass the article shortly - it looks fine. Narayanese ( talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Lead:
Description:
Reproduction:
Photobiont:
Distribution and habitat:
Chemical compounds:
Factually accurate and verifiable:
Neutrality:
No content dispute:
Images:
Placing it on hold. Narayanese ( talk) 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly better now. Shame about removing the sentence about regeneration though, it was an interesting tidbit (but it didn't belong in the reproduction section) Sorry about clades (appearantly L. pulmonaria isn't necessarily that related to other Lobaria species ( http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/3/449)), I meant taxonomic groups, like Fungi and Lobaria in the taxobox. The citation normally goes at the end of the name field.
Various suggestions outside of GA review:
Narayanese ( talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Another thing: if the taxobox/taxonomy doesn't reflect phylogeny, then the article should say so. Narayanese ( talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't object to my placement a phylogeny ref in the taxobox, I will pass the article shortly - it looks fine. Narayanese ( talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)