Talk:Phytosemiotics
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities
[edit]
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jthom254 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jthom254 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback
[edit]@Jthom254: Greetings! Since you didn't get any peer review, I'll leave you some feedback here. Here are some quick hits from reading through the article:
- I think a "Definition" section is unusual. I think the job of the WP:LEAD is typically to define the term and I would expect this to happen there.
- The article relies extremely heavily on repeated citations to three references by Kull, Faucher, and Krampen. I feel like an excellent article will make the point using a variety of sources.
- I think is unnecessary to include repeated citations to the same the same reference within the sentence. You can include on citation for the while sentence and it will be clear.
- The first sentence defines the term as the "vegetative semiosis" but I don't know what this is either. I think the articles, and the lead in specific, should be written for a general audience.
- Krampen appears to be a primary source here so relying too heavily on that one is probably not great. I guess the other main references are also proponents?
- The "Comparisons with other biosemiotics" section seems to actually be a comparison of phytosemiotics to zoosemiotics, no? I would just make that clear. I think the subheaders of "similarities" and "differences" is unusual and I would turn it into just two paragraphs.
- It seems that this topic is at least partially overlapping with pseudoscientific believes about plants and their ability to communicate. The obvious example, which I mentioned to you before, is the influential book from the 1970s on the The Secret Life of Plants. That's obviously very focused on plant perception (paranormal and legit) but it seems strange that there's no real discussion of that here. You mention "controversy" a few times but there's no mention of what the specific controversy here and what side reliable sources come down on.
I could probably identify more things but I guess this is plenty to work on! —mako๛ 20:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)