User talk:Peter coxhead
TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f
I now have a TUSC account!
Plant article naming convention
Hi Peter coxhead. There is a plant article naming convention request at the Help Desk. I saw your name listed at Naming_conventions_(flora) contributions and am hoping you would post your thoughts at How long does speedy deletion usually take?. I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --
Hey thank you for editing . My friend
Peter, I wonder if I could ask for your assistance. There are a few of us who are working on some of User:Wadewitz's articles, to bring them up to featured status and to continue her legacy. Currently, we're working on this article. Would you mind doing a copyedit? I ask you because you're active on the Botany Wikiproject, and this book is about botany, which is definitely not my area of expertise here. (Modern American Literature and children's TV are.) I'm not even sure in what botanical category this article belongs, other than its current categories. I'm really looking for whether or not it's comprehensive enough, or if it needs more botany content. I don't think its prose needs much, so I'd appreciate your assistance in assessing its comprehensiveness and scientific accuracy. Thanks, and keep up your good work here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Peter coxhead, Blitum bonus-henricus is the accepted name since 2012, thats why I moved it there in 2013. But you moved it back to Chenopodium bonus-henricus, referencing just one database (The Plant List), that is not yet actualized. I added the taxonomic data to the page. Do you agree, that it can be moved back to Blitum now? --Thiotrix (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- WP:RS requires us to use reliable secondary sources to establish information in Wikipedia. You say that it's the "accepted name" since 2012, but accepted by whom? Any botanist can publish a paper giving new generic placements, but the test is whether these are accepted by other botanists. I couldn't find any evidence that this was the case for Chenopodium bonus-henricus. If I'm wrong and there are reliable secondary sources for the move to Blitum, then it can, of course, be moved back. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Blitum bonus-henricus is accepted by GRIN and by NCBI (Blitum bonus-henricus at GRIN, Blitum bonus-henricus at National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). These were cited also at the foot of the article before your latest reverts. The Plant List is usually very late in updating, so it is not a good reference. Please revert your reverts, because I was just asking for technical help for moving back to Blitum, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. --Thiotrix (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Peter. I'm trying to do my best with these illustrations but it's hard to find information about fossil plants. I just uploaded File:Horneophyton lignieri reconstrucción.jpg! and an actualization of my old and poor image File:Nothia.png!, now I'm fighting with Cooksonia :P. Thanks again. Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 11:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Falconaumanni: I think your reconstruction at File:Horneophyton lignieri reconstrucción.jpg is slightly wrong (like others in the literature). The "bulbs" are only about 2× as wide as the stems, at most 3×, but in your drawing they appear bigger. See File:Horneophyton.svg and the links in the text there. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Humm, I didn't see that link about the size of the bulbs but only the other one about the sporangia. You are right about that, they looked bigger in the drawing than they apparently were. I made a change in the illustration, I think now it is more faithful. Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 17:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I was looking at that picture while drawing. It's the only one I found with a longitudinal view of a corm. I have seen that you have uploaded that image, It's really a fantastic fossil. Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Requesting review of articles
Hello Peter, what's the protocol for getting Wikipedia articles re-graded please? I've substantially edited quite a few articles now, most of which were stub class before. Does this happen automatically in time or do I have to flag it somehow?
- Basically you do it yourself! If you wait long enough some active editor will change the assessment, but it may be a long wait. For plant articles, look at WP:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Quality scale, and pick a class up to B. If you've not sure, I'll be happy to give an opinion. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the sound of that! ;) I'll try to be objective.... Will update the ones I've worked on (Potamogeton polygonifolius, Potamogeton gramineus, Potamogeton coloratus, Potamogeton praelongus, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Potamogeton lucens, Potamogeton trichoides, Potamogeton berchtoldii, Potamogeton pusillus, Potamogeton, Potamogeton x griffithii, Potamogeton alpinus, Potamogeton compressus) but second opinion is always useful.Tristan He (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I looked at Potamogeton polygonifolius. It's a clear, well-written article, generally well-referenced; certainly a C. For a B (the highest that can be given without a review), I'd like to see:
- All sections referenced – the Cultivation section isn't.
- The lead being a genuine summary of the article – the lead section there is too short.
- So personally, I'd rate it C. But maybe I'm a bit conservative. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
|Happy Holiday Cheer|
|Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine|