Talk:History of botany/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hello, I will review this article. It might take some time due to the length of the article but it will get done. I will make comments of what needs improving below.[reply]

Many thanks Esuzu for taking on this review. Granitethighs 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look I notice that many of the paragraphs are missing closing citations. That will need to be fixed.

That's fine I'll search out those that have unsubstantiated assertions and therefore require citations.Granitethighs 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneRef 25 not linking to the book as it should.
DoneTake care of weasel words (WP:Weasel words): "It is claimed that Ghini invented the first plant press and compiled the first herbarium." is one.
There is a lot of redundant words that are vague and just make the article to "wordy." Examples which I found in the article is "all", "many", "some", "several", "a number of". Try to remove them if possible or replace them with a more precise word.
Done"It must be assumed that, of necessity, nomadic hunter-gatherer societies passed on by oral tradition their empirical findings about different kinds of plants and their use as food, shelter, poisons, medicines, for ceremony and so on, this being embedded in the folk-taxonomies of pre-literate societies." does not sound like a encyclopaedic entry. "It must be assumed that" should be changed to (for example) "Mr X believes that..."
DonePeople should not have to click on a wiki-link to know what something is. An example is in "Early botany" section. "The Atharvaveda divides plants..." you have to introduce the new thing somewhat, just "the sacred Hinduism text Atharvaveda" would suffice. This needs to be fixed in more places.
DoneThe three last paragraphs in the "Ancient India" section are very short and feels more like they wore a list. Try to combine them to one paragraph and try to make them into prose. For example, "other examples of Indian..."
Done"Like Aristotle he grouped plants as "trees", "undershrubs", "shrubs" and "herbs" but also distinguished annuals, perennials and biennials; monocotyledons and dicotyledons; he noted the difference between determinate and indeterminate growth, also details of floral structure including the degree of fusion of the petals, position of the ovary and more." is a very long sentence. Please try to re-structure it. (Makes it easier to read)
Done"In these lecture notes of Theophrastus we have the first clear exposition of the rudiments of plant anatomy, physiology, morphology and ecology — presented in a way that would not be matched for another eighteen centuries." - avoid pronouns like "we", it gives the feeling that there is a narrator that is telling it
Done"he frequently quotes Theophrastus but with little botanical insight." the bold text should probably be a quote.

Thanks Esuzu, I will work through these points one at a time and tick them off. They are all useful. Could I ask that you keep to substantive suggestions (as you mostly do). I notice that you have for example changed "like a modern university" to "resembles" a university. There are a couple of issues here. I appreciate brevity in editing as a general principle but simply reducing word count to a minimum at all times can cause stylistic problems. Articles are encouraged by Wikipedia to be "engaging". This means a reader-friendly style. Naturally this is a matter of taste but some leeway needs to be given here. I am simply suggesting that there are more important things to worry about. Also the Lyceum existed in the past - so the word would be "resembled", not "resembles" ... no need to make more work than necessary. Your comments are nevertheless extremely useful - I will try to keep up with you. Granitethighs 11:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneIn the "Medicinal plants of the early Middle Ages" section you use the Chinese and Arabian names after the westernised one. It mostly clutters the page and makes it harder to read. If people want to see the Chinese signs they can click on the wikilink. I think it would be best if they were removed.
Done"It is claimed that Ghini invented the first plant press and compiled the first herbarium." who claims it?
Done"By the eighteenth century the physic gardens had been transformed into "order beds" that demonstrated the classification systems that were being devised by botanists of the day, their modern day equivalents being known as "systems gardens", but first they had to accommodate the influx of botanical trophies of curious, beautiful and new plants that were the result of horticultural exploration and the first stirrings of European colonial expansion." is a looong sentence. Try to separate into more smaller.
In the "Botanical exploration" section. The Apostles of Linnaeus could perhaps be worth mentioning?
In the whole "The European Renaissance and after 1550–1800" there is very little information about other places in the world. How did things go in for example Asia and Arabia? How were their botany progressing? Is there anything worth mentioning?
Done"Early work in this area was synthesised by Copenhagen professor Eugenius Warming (1841–1924) in" Copenhagen should probably be replaced by Danish.
DoneUnder "Carbon fixation (photosynthesis)" there is a dab link to Mayer
DoneIn the intro of "Twentieth century" there is two sentences ("Research funding was..." and "By 1910 experiments...") that to me feels awkward by themselves. Try to put them in a better context.

General

There is a lot of wikilinks in the text. Try to reduce them to only the most important are left. Also, you only need to link for example "Pig" on the first occurrence.
As I mentioned earlier, the text will need a few more references. Every paragraph needs inline citations. Some paragraphs are missing it entirely, some have some but no closing citations.
Try to check if both western and the rest of the world's history is described.
There are some references not linking to their books correctly. Please check all references and make sure that they work.
When you use quotations the " should be after the dot not before it. I saw this sometimes and corrected at least one, please make sure it is correctly formatted. (example: "Hi, I like cucumbers." not "Hi, I like cucumbers".[sic])

Done*Several different dab links, they need to be fixed. You can find them on [1]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Needs some work before it is GA standard
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
More references is needed
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Check the rest of the world
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Some captions could be more engaging but that is no criteria
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article is currently on hold until all the problems have been addressed.

I am now failing this article since absolutely nothing has been done in the last seven days. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough E, I got caught up in other things. I have now tackled the minor edits and will address your more general suggestions over the next week or two before resubmitting. Thanks for your help. In the dablinks I was not sure how to deal with Thomas Knight who does not have a link but who i cannot put in red because there are other Thomas Knights.Granitethighs 11:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolkit

Clear ranks?

Done The article currently says: Eighteenth century plant taxonomy bequeathed to the nineteenth century clear ideas of the family, genus and species. this is in contrast with my view and for example Family (biology) that says: What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. Not only does that article provide this excuse. It does not even try to define how closely related to species (genuses (genii)) need to be to be considered as belonging to the same family. In a way, the concept is very clear: bigger then the genuses it consists of (most of the time), smaller than the order (superfamily) it belongs to. As clear as this is, it is rather vacuous, not really something to highlight as an achievement. Maybe there is more to the rank concepts than I am aware of. In this case it should be described or at least referenced. --Ettrig (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]

Fair enough. I'll revisit this section and select my words more carefully.Granitethighs 12:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the entire article and am re-submitting for GA.Granitethighs 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following passage from History of plant systematics better characterizes Linneaus' systematics:

Although meticulous, the classification of Linnaeus served merely as an identification manual; it was based on phenetics and did not regard evolutionary relationships among species.^[1]

--Ettrig (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ettrig. Linnaeus believed in special creation - evolution was a long way off. I have included assessments of Linnaeus's work in a couple of spots: you might want to check out Philosophia Botanica#Historical assesssment.Granitethighs 00:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Concise Encyclopedia Of Science And Technology, McGraw-Hill

[est-1] Concise Encyclopedia Of Science And Technology, McGraw-Hill

[1]