Talk:Apoplast
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 5 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liny75.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flamingdiscopenguin. Peer reviewers: Flamingdiscopenguin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Style and content, and reversal of my edit(s)
[edit]Please dear fellow Wikipedians, the previous writer(s) and the recent reversor included, but hopefully not limited to them; in the interest of GOOD QUALITY please, please have a very close look at my edits and do a fair and reasonable judgement, and then decide if they were really not serving the article very well in the most part.
I am more than happy to be ("stand") corrected if & when I got things wrong, and for example about the very first, summary, sentences of the page I am in fact quite unsure - they were so uncomprehendable that I might have misunderstood s.th. (I even made that clear in a "clarification needed" note at least in one of the two articles which deal with those two tissue spaces and transport modes.
However, that one long overly specialized, overly complicated part, which in addition contained phrases which do clearly not conform with Wikipedia guidelines (AND on top had many minor grammatical errors, but that would of course not be a real problem) which I in the end had decided to best just remove completely, should really be looked at, with only article quality and the sense it makes (or does not make, as I think until now, unless it will be very much rewritten).
I have put very much time, very much thinking into all the other edits, I am definitely not "trolling" and absolutely in no way interested in "wars" and very, very much hope, that apart from that one very long paragraph those others will not be trashed just for ?personal? reasons.
- I do apologize for not yet having used the "clarification needed"-template – I DID in the meantime find the page that explains how to properly do that and have read up about it, so I WILL correct all these if no-one helps out with that, I just had not had time for that yet.
Please, please, do all, including and especially previous writers, be FAIR, think about QUALITY and WHOM Wikipedia is intended for.
I do totally understand(!!) how easy it is to think about one's own expert, but everyday language as everybody's everyday language and how hard it can be, even having recognized that mistake, to "translate" it from 'scientific publication/ university style' to what an/ THIS enyclopaedia needs. Anyhow, these needs/ the guidelines for the two are different, and as easy as that is to be forgotten in initially writing, possibly about "one's own topic", possibly passionately, please do not "punish" people who try to contribute to what had been given as content (and appreciated this content-contribution very much) by trying to make it more approachable. I myself certainly am not a 'total fool', am so lucky as to be able to read and comprehend many scientific studies, AND am not completely lacking botanical knowledge, so when I think that certain passages should better be reworded, that could, I think, be first(ly?) considered as possibly being a valid judgement, and be worthy of getting judged fairly by others. I am pretty sure my restructuring, rewording, explanations and links to explanations are not decreasing any Wikipedia articles' content or style quality (as long as I didn't make grammar errors, typos and mistakes in understanding of content, which all can happen, of course); it will surely not have ever resulted in "baby talk" or in reduced information, (I am definitely not talented enough myself to be able to "translate" ANY article for the "Simple English" language Wikipedia site,) and still (too) many specialist words (sadly) remain unexplained, just linked (if possible!, at least) even after my trying to find somewhat of a 'middle ground'. I do hope that readers of this and of the article(s) agree; not only appreciate the hard work, but see where Wikipedia quality standards and goals are met better and continue that same work. 2A02:3035:419:25DF:2:1:1BCF:ED9E (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)