Nepenthes rajah 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a great article and maybe you planned on getting to it, but is there more detail avaialable on the digestion mechanism? Enzyme, bacteria, etc. The general carnivorous plants and the genus article don't have any details on this one but do note that various plants have a variety of mechanisms. Thanks - Taxman Talk 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I am very impressed with the amount of work that has been put in to this article recently. I notice the footnoted references have not been implemented quite right. They need to be either fixed using {{ ref_label}} and {{ note_label}}, or switched over to the new <ref> inline footnoting scheme. For instructions on the new footnoting scheme see Meta:Cite.php. I might giv eit a try myself when I get a chance, if no one beats me to it. -- Martyman- (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles, but I have removed the nomination because:
Otherwise it's a very fine article and you should re-nominate it once these are corrected. Worldtraveller 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the {{ prod}} tag from Nepenthes rajah/B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah and replaced it with an {{ afd}}, so the decision may be considered by more editors before anything happens. The question of copyright seems to be an important one, since this text was written by B. H. Danser. Please contribute to the AfD discussion. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks like this article has reached FA status. Any plans to submit it any time soon?
My one critique has to do with the distribution map, which appears far too dark to me. Any way you could lighten it and re-upload it? If not, I can try to do the same when I get a chance. -- NoahElhardt 00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
WHat a sensational article - well done, obviously took a great deal of time HelloMojo 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
mgiganteus:
As you can see above i think this is a great article - but i don't understand why my edits were so quickly dismissed and reverted! You said "introductions do not need citations" - well i can see at least 5 citations in this articles lead. Why not just provide a citation? As for the cultivation section "not being a how to guide" there are lots of tips and instructions given on cultivation of these species:
"Purified water should be used for watering purposes, although 'hard water' is tolerated"
I think a lot of the stuff in that section should stay, expecially the environmental factor stuff but there is some stuff in that section that i really don't think should be on wikipedia as it tells people how to grow the plants and that's information that is useful but it doesn't have a place in wikipedia. I can understand that the big template at the top of the page could just be off-pissing especially as its so unspecific and I hope we can work this out :) Kotare 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC):
Actually forget I said anything. Now that I look closely it's not really presented as a how-to guide and if there's a citation later on fair enough. Kotare 09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I came here for a different reason but have to say 'Wow - what an amazing article.' FA-worthy, surely? Congratulations to all involved.
I'm not sure if the accompanying pic is of interest/use for the article - it shows some Nepenthes rajah plants ("a typical native pitcher plant - Naperthes Rajah" [sic] in the church guide) depicted in part of a memorial stained glass window in Sheepstor Church, Devon, England (burial place of the Brooke rajahs) dedicated to those from Sarawak who died in WW2.
Quite quirky to find a stained glass window depicting Nipah palms, pitcher plants and Bornean deer, butterflies and moths in an tiny English country church. The lower moth is identifed in the church guide as "the night hawk moth - Atticus Atlas" [sic] ( Attacus atlas) and the upper one is "the blue/green butterfly discovered in that land and named after Sir James - Papilio Brookiana" [sic], but I'm not sure about this one as it doesn't look much like Trogonoptera brookiana aka Rajah Brooke's birdwing to me .... Wrong colours for a start ... Jasper33 ( talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8552000/8552157.stm ParasiteNetwork ( talk) 10:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The use of a show/hide section is interesting; I don't know what other editors think but I believe it could be useful in other articles. (A good application would often be detailed descriptions of the taxonomic history of the subject of the article, a topic which is rarely of much interest to general readers.) One issue which concerned me is whether the material in this section is actually quotation. If the Latin description isn't actually quoted, I'm impressed with Mgiganteus1's botanical Latin! If any of the material here is a quotation, then it should be shown as such, by quote marks or blockquote sections. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Rattus baluensis visiting Nepenthes rajah.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
Doesn't this section belong in Interactions with animals instead of Carnivory? -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There is written in the article: One such example is the famous legend that N. rajah grows exclusively in the spray zones of waterfalls [...] It is likely this misconception was popularised by Shigeo Kurata's 1976 book Nepenthes of Mount Kinabalu, in which he states that "N. rajah is rather fond of wet places like swamps or the surroundings of a waterfall". The only given source for this information is the Kurata's book.
I have two remarks: 1) The given information that it is fond of wet places like swamps or the surroundings of a waterfall does not mean that it grows exclusively in waterfall zones. 2) Even if there was such information in the book (which is not), there is no source stating that it was this book which popularized it.
Therefore I added the citation needed template into the article.
-- Jan Kameníček ( talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Nepenthes rajah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-01/features/featplants/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ansijournals.com/qredirect.php?doi=jbs.2002.623.625&linkid=pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ansijournals.com/qredirect.php?doi=jbs.2002.623.625&linkid=pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Nepenthes rajah 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a great article and maybe you planned on getting to it, but is there more detail avaialable on the digestion mechanism? Enzyme, bacteria, etc. The general carnivorous plants and the genus article don't have any details on this one but do note that various plants have a variety of mechanisms. Thanks - Taxman Talk 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I am very impressed with the amount of work that has been put in to this article recently. I notice the footnoted references have not been implemented quite right. They need to be either fixed using {{ ref_label}} and {{ note_label}}, or switched over to the new <ref> inline footnoting scheme. For instructions on the new footnoting scheme see Meta:Cite.php. I might giv eit a try myself when I get a chance, if no one beats me to it. -- Martyman- (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles, but I have removed the nomination because:
Otherwise it's a very fine article and you should re-nominate it once these are corrected. Worldtraveller 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the {{ prod}} tag from Nepenthes rajah/B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah and replaced it with an {{ afd}}, so the decision may be considered by more editors before anything happens. The question of copyright seems to be an important one, since this text was written by B. H. Danser. Please contribute to the AfD discussion. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks like this article has reached FA status. Any plans to submit it any time soon?
My one critique has to do with the distribution map, which appears far too dark to me. Any way you could lighten it and re-upload it? If not, I can try to do the same when I get a chance. -- NoahElhardt 00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
WHat a sensational article - well done, obviously took a great deal of time HelloMojo 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
mgiganteus:
As you can see above i think this is a great article - but i don't understand why my edits were so quickly dismissed and reverted! You said "introductions do not need citations" - well i can see at least 5 citations in this articles lead. Why not just provide a citation? As for the cultivation section "not being a how to guide" there are lots of tips and instructions given on cultivation of these species:
"Purified water should be used for watering purposes, although 'hard water' is tolerated"
I think a lot of the stuff in that section should stay, expecially the environmental factor stuff but there is some stuff in that section that i really don't think should be on wikipedia as it tells people how to grow the plants and that's information that is useful but it doesn't have a place in wikipedia. I can understand that the big template at the top of the page could just be off-pissing especially as its so unspecific and I hope we can work this out :) Kotare 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC):
Actually forget I said anything. Now that I look closely it's not really presented as a how-to guide and if there's a citation later on fair enough. Kotare 09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I came here for a different reason but have to say 'Wow - what an amazing article.' FA-worthy, surely? Congratulations to all involved.
I'm not sure if the accompanying pic is of interest/use for the article - it shows some Nepenthes rajah plants ("a typical native pitcher plant - Naperthes Rajah" [sic] in the church guide) depicted in part of a memorial stained glass window in Sheepstor Church, Devon, England (burial place of the Brooke rajahs) dedicated to those from Sarawak who died in WW2.
Quite quirky to find a stained glass window depicting Nipah palms, pitcher plants and Bornean deer, butterflies and moths in an tiny English country church. The lower moth is identifed in the church guide as "the night hawk moth - Atticus Atlas" [sic] ( Attacus atlas) and the upper one is "the blue/green butterfly discovered in that land and named after Sir James - Papilio Brookiana" [sic], but I'm not sure about this one as it doesn't look much like Trogonoptera brookiana aka Rajah Brooke's birdwing to me .... Wrong colours for a start ... Jasper33 ( talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8552000/8552157.stm ParasiteNetwork ( talk) 10:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The use of a show/hide section is interesting; I don't know what other editors think but I believe it could be useful in other articles. (A good application would often be detailed descriptions of the taxonomic history of the subject of the article, a topic which is rarely of much interest to general readers.) One issue which concerned me is whether the material in this section is actually quotation. If the Latin description isn't actually quoted, I'm impressed with Mgiganteus1's botanical Latin! If any of the material here is a quotation, then it should be shown as such, by quote marks or blockquote sections. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Rattus baluensis visiting Nepenthes rajah.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
Doesn't this section belong in Interactions with animals instead of Carnivory? -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There is written in the article: One such example is the famous legend that N. rajah grows exclusively in the spray zones of waterfalls [...] It is likely this misconception was popularised by Shigeo Kurata's 1976 book Nepenthes of Mount Kinabalu, in which he states that "N. rajah is rather fond of wet places like swamps or the surroundings of a waterfall". The only given source for this information is the Kurata's book.
I have two remarks: 1) The given information that it is fond of wet places like swamps or the surroundings of a waterfall does not mean that it grows exclusively in waterfall zones. 2) Even if there was such information in the book (which is not), there is no source stating that it was this book which popularized it.
Therefore I added the citation needed template into the article.
-- Jan Kameníček ( talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Nepenthes rajah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-01/features/featplants/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ansijournals.com/qredirect.php?doi=jbs.2002.623.625&linkid=pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ansijournals.com/qredirect.php?doi=jbs.2002.623.625&linkid=pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)