![]() | Sarracenia was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I put up a Collaboration of the Week marker for this page. Although this page has some good information on it already, it could really use some fleshing out. Hopefully others will put some time into this page as well. A few preliminary comments:
Any thoughts on this?
We will be needing more photos, especially representative photos of mature pitchers from each species. I should have a few around somewhere. -- NoahElhardt 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A good schema. I agree about putting the species list on a separate page, but it will mean removing the example cultivars — including just a couple doesn't make sense except in the context of the article. Perhaps a fragment of the list with the species, ssp, and the example cultivars could remain in the article, with a link like: For the complete species list, see List of Sarracenia species, and the separate list would just show the species. ~ Veledan • Talk 13:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "Under Construction" tag and the "Collaboration of the Week" tag. I finished up the leaf morphology section, although I'm not sure that the morphology/carnivorous_function section flows well. If also filled in the Cultivation section a bit. Anyone see anything else that needs to be done still? Thank-you to all involved for turning this into quite a nice article!! -- NoahElhardt 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the first bit on propagation — is that the kind of content that's needed, or should it focus less on practical advice? This article is coming on something splendid by the way :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Just about time to nom this for FAC. We just need to switch the web references with the cite-web template and make sure Sarracenia purpurea - anatomical sketch.jpg has a current PD tag. After that, I'm nomming it. SunDragon34 ( talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I disappeared there for a while on this article. From my overhaul of the classification section last weekend, I've come to the conclusion that this article is very far from FA status. (See WP:FACR for the criteria.) I have some references for the cultivation section, which I can add. Anyone know where the info came from for the morphology section?
Oh, and I wanted to ask everyone about my revision of the species list. Barry Rice is a proponent of using S. alabamensis and S. jonesii. From what I can tell, they're accepted about as much as S. rosea, which we do include. So we have to decide to pick an authority and stick to it, since making up our own system might be original research. Any thoughts on that? -- Rkitko ( talk) 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A proposal was made to merge the article on feeding mechanisms of this plant into the article on the plant. I fully support this proposal: there is no reason for a separate article on feeding mechanisms. A loose noose ( talk) 06:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I have now performed this merge myself. Apparently the original article on feeding mechanisms was a classwork assignment. I have notified its original author of what I have done and explained why it was merged into this article (as a content fork), then deleted the content as it was entirely redundant to what was already here. A loose noose ( talk) 06:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Sarracenia was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I put up a Collaboration of the Week marker for this page. Although this page has some good information on it already, it could really use some fleshing out. Hopefully others will put some time into this page as well. A few preliminary comments:
Any thoughts on this?
We will be needing more photos, especially representative photos of mature pitchers from each species. I should have a few around somewhere. -- NoahElhardt 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A good schema. I agree about putting the species list on a separate page, but it will mean removing the example cultivars — including just a couple doesn't make sense except in the context of the article. Perhaps a fragment of the list with the species, ssp, and the example cultivars could remain in the article, with a link like: For the complete species list, see List of Sarracenia species, and the separate list would just show the species. ~ Veledan • Talk 13:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "Under Construction" tag and the "Collaboration of the Week" tag. I finished up the leaf morphology section, although I'm not sure that the morphology/carnivorous_function section flows well. If also filled in the Cultivation section a bit. Anyone see anything else that needs to be done still? Thank-you to all involved for turning this into quite a nice article!! -- NoahElhardt 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the first bit on propagation — is that the kind of content that's needed, or should it focus less on practical advice? This article is coming on something splendid by the way :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Just about time to nom this for FAC. We just need to switch the web references with the cite-web template and make sure Sarracenia purpurea - anatomical sketch.jpg has a current PD tag. After that, I'm nomming it. SunDragon34 ( talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I disappeared there for a while on this article. From my overhaul of the classification section last weekend, I've come to the conclusion that this article is very far from FA status. (See WP:FACR for the criteria.) I have some references for the cultivation section, which I can add. Anyone know where the info came from for the morphology section?
Oh, and I wanted to ask everyone about my revision of the species list. Barry Rice is a proponent of using S. alabamensis and S. jonesii. From what I can tell, they're accepted about as much as S. rosea, which we do include. So we have to decide to pick an authority and stick to it, since making up our own system might be original research. Any thoughts on that? -- Rkitko ( talk) 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A proposal was made to merge the article on feeding mechanisms of this plant into the article on the plant. I fully support this proposal: there is no reason for a separate article on feeding mechanisms. A loose noose ( talk) 06:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I have now performed this merge myself. Apparently the original article on feeding mechanisms was a classwork assignment. I have notified its original author of what I have done and explained why it was merged into this article (as a content fork), then deleted the content as it was entirely redundant to what was already here. A loose noose ( talk) 06:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)