Talk:Botany/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 05:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be starting my review of the article in the next couple of days and comments from other people will be much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

First reading

I have read through the article carefully. In general the quality of the prose is excellent. I did a little copyediting as I went where I came across a trivial fault. I have listed below a few concerns I had. I will later look at the article from the point of view of the other GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lead

1. 1500s-1700 is awkward fixed
2. "systematices" - I don't think this is right, systematics is a plural noun already.fixed typo

• Early modern botany

Further information: Taxonomy § History of taxonomy

1. Can you make this link more visually appealing? fixed

• Modern botany

1. "major questions such as which families represent the earliest branches in the genealogy of angiosperms are now understood." This sentence is awkward. fixed

• Scope and importance of botany

1. "The study of plants is vital because they are a fundamental part of life on Earth, which generates the oxygen, food, fibres, fuel and medicine that allow humans and other life forms to exist." Can you clarify this? I don't understand. to me it's obvious that oxygen and food are vital.

• • I agree that oxygen and food are essential but you need to distinguish between what is vital and what is merely useful. As it stands, the sentence implies that "...(plants) generate the fuel and medicines that allow other life forms to exist." ah, got it, cut the "useful" part

1. "Plants are crucial to the future of human society as they provide food, oxygen, beauty, medicine, habitat for animals, products for people, and create and preserve soil." This sentence needs arranging into a more grammatical sentence with a more logical sequence. fixed

• Human nutrition

1. The last sentence is too convoluted, can you divide it into two? fixed

• Environmental changes

1. "Analyzing pollen from by plants thousands or millions of years ago allows reconstruct of past climates and predicting future ones; which is essential to climate change research." Can you correct this sentence and expand it to provide clarification? Where is this pollen found? fixed

• Evolution

1. "Spermatophytes are plants that produce seeds. Gymnosperms produce unenclosed seeds" Need to explain the relationship of Gymnosperms with Spermatophores fixed, well I tried

• • I have done a bit of clarifying.
• Physiology

1. "Plant physiology is the energy the plant brings in acting upon materials brought into the plant via various mechanisms." Could you provide a better definition of plant physiology? fixed
2. "Cell types are unique and their nucleus stores most of the DNA." Could this be moved to a better location. It seems wrong here, and shouldn't it be "nuclei"? made it nuclei, but where to move to?

• • I have moved it.
• Structure

1. "Plants with horizontal-spreading roots, such as willows, produce shoots" This is a curious statement, don't plants with vertical roots produce shoots? Please clarify. fixed

Tried to address all the above. 512bits (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Good edits, thanks for helping, took a stab at the vital thing. 512bits (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Nearly there! I have done a little copyediting and noticed that in the "Evolution" section there is an incomplete sentence which needs correction: "In this system Eukaryota (nuclei-bearing eukaryotes)."  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The section "Research" seems to be about the topics in the subsections rather than research into these topics. I suggest removing this heading and elevating the present subsection headings to a higher level.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The method of referencing is new to me but seems to be efficiently and comprehensively done.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article is well-referenced with appropriate inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problem here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is largely stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are suitably licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are suitable for the subject and are appropriately captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am satisfied that the article now meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1a - you didn't make comments so I don't know what the issues are

1b - done

512bits (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the example given in 1a (the sentence "In this system Eukaryota (nuclei-bearing eukaryotes)." under #Evolution) added after 512bits' comment, is that paragraph up until the mention of cyanobacteria even worth having in the section? The article does not talk much about Archaea and, after reading those few sentences, I do not see how Thomas Cavalier-Smith rejecting the classification relates to evolution in regards to botany. Perhaps it is straying from the article's focus a bit? Maybe I'm missing something, but if I am it still brings up the point that those sentences do not lead anywhere or appear to relate to the mentioning of cyanobacteria.

I have removed the sentence because it disrupted the focus of Archaea vs. Bacteria by mentioning Eukaryota, and I could not work it into the paragraph without it feeling like a random addition. But, once again, I am sort of jumping in here. – Jonadin (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WOW! I just came back to work on this more and WOW. I am so happy! Thanks for the help everyone; and the excellent review.512bits (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)