Talk:Plantago lanceolata
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Article Adjustments
[edit]The article has a lot of good content! However, I think it would help to get a bit more specific on certain genes that have been found to confer resistance or discuss which strains of P. lanceolata display resistant phenotypes. It would also be helpful to mention the specific pathogen to which the plant is resistant to in that section. Some of the section also need a bit of clarification as well. While reading, I noticed a lot of crossover and did my best to rearrange. The sources that have been used for this article seem to be reputable and varied making the article more credible. Salenrs (talk)
Overall, the article is very well-structured, especially noting that it was built from scratch. I think one important thing to note is the fact that while there mention of the sixteen different phenotypes that are present in the population, which phenotypes are the most common resistance phenotypes. In addition, there should be additional information listed about the genotypes at the molecular level which would allow for a better understanding of the resistance pathway to any pathogen. You can take a look at this website to provide some references that relate to the Plantago lanceolata: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00442-004-1603-6.
I think there should also be some clarification for the Environment subheading, as the sentences do not flow well together. The ideas seem jumbled together, leading to confusion for the reader. It would be beneficial if all of the sentences flowed well and moved from one point to the next. However, the entire article seems very well put together! Fireblade7869 (talk)Fireblade7869 —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
2nd edits
[edit]After reading other comments that classmates have made, I realized that this article was created from nothing! Since that is the case, this article has done fairly well! The information under "Reproduction" ties well into our classroom discussion with reproduction, so good job! The information under the last two sections is where I think the article could use the most work. I changed some of it for grammatical errors, but there were some sentences that I didn't understand, and there was one sentence that was repeated in the post-infection section. I think you did a good job following the comments about narrowing down the phenotypes. Good job! Anon330 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anon330, Thank you very much. I have deleted much of the last section because there was too much repetition for sure. Thank you for your comments, the post-infection section needed work, so what I did was I changed it so there is now only a few sentences. The sentences talk about only the post-infection instead of talking in circles about everything else as well. I made sure to explain what this section was saying, but only in a few short sentences. Thank you again. Slu 2018 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Slu 2018,
Your article has a lot of good information and its layout is good. I went ahead and restructured some of your sentences to clarify a few things and I made a few grammar edits. I think your article could benefit from introducing Podosphaera plantaginis and saying that it is a pathogen before jumping right into the rest of the article. More basic research on the relationship between the two, such as how the interaction happens and what it affects, could help the reader understand your article better. Keep up the good work!
R-NH2 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi R-NH2, Thank you very much for looking at my article and giving me comments. I took most of the Podospharea plantains section out and instead just described in a few sentences what it is, but mainly I just described the interaction between the two, and what happens when it is infected by this fungus. I took out the majority of sentences and talked a little bit less about this, but that was so it could be more clear for the reader. Thank you again for your comments. Slu 2018 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Added Subsection
[edit]Hi, I found this article during my research on Melitaea cinxia (a butterfly) for an ecology class, and added a section here on insect predation since this plant is a food source for the caterpillars. I moved the powdery mildew sections under a larger heading titled "Enemies." I also added "Insect Predation" section under that heading since the three sections seemed to fit well together. I added some information about butterflies/moths that lay their eggs on this plant as a food source for when they hatch as caterpillars. Here I linked my article on the Glanville fritillary (Melitaea cinxia) and added two new sources to support the information I added. Cool article!
Mullenm05 (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)mullenm05
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Plantago lanceolata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725234116/http://www.valplantes.ch/definition.html to http://www.valplantes.ch/definition.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Self-published source
[edit]The first paragraph of the In Popular Culture section contains two sources, at least one of which is easily WP:SELFPUB as it is a post on a personal blog. I'm not sure about the Dave's Garden source so I won't touch it. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)