Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nepenthes rajah/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:26, 7 May 2007.
This article, about the carnivorous plant species famous for having trapped and digested rats, was at or near FA quality when I joined WP over a year ago. Its author, user:Mgiganteus1, has further expanded and improved it since. Saying that all knowledge about this plant is summed up in the article would not be far from the truth - it certainly is the most thorough overview of this plant in print or online and, unless I am mistaken, the most extensive plant article on Wikipedia! --NoahElhardt 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A couple things that I eventually planned to change on my own, but I'll note here anyway: Some of the ref tags seem to be placed in the middle of sentences (e.g. These are capable of holding 3.5 litres of water[5] and in excess of 2.5 litres of digestive fluid, making them probably the largest in the genus by volume). Per WP:FOOT, it would appear that footnotes should only follow punctuation or a specific term, such as when the common names are listed in the article with references immediately after them. Those sentences can be reworded to avoid attributing the entire sentence to the source. Also, I'm curious about the external links in Nepenthes rajah#Related species?. Are they references or examples? A bit of unencyclopedic language/borderline POV crops up here and there, too (e.g. ...is now the only place where regular visitors can hope to see this spectacular species in its natural habitat). These are just minor points; otherwise this is an excellent article. I would fully support if these are addressed (and I might do it myself). --Rkitko (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs after a phrase like that are perfectly fine. From Wikipedia:Footnotes: "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." Pagrashtak 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that, but considered it to mean a particular phrase (saying or catchphrase) that needs citation. "Phrase" is rather vague--it needs to be defined more carefully. Do they mean clause? Anyway, like I said, it's a minor point. --Rkitko (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs after a phrase like that are perfectly fine. From Wikipedia:Footnotes: "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." Pagrashtak 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - Contains several replaceable non-free images. Redlinks in references need to be removed for subjects who do not merit a Wikipedia article. Pagrashtak 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaceable? If the subjects of those images are to be illustrated with photos, those are probably the only photos that will do it. Three are of natural hybrids (= only photographed by botanical travelers in borneo), and one is of an extremely rare upper pitcher. It is difficult to adequately describe the anatomy of an organ without an image, and the fact that this one is a black-and-white scan from a book underlines its rarity. One might make the argument that one or two of the photos aren't fundamental, but they certainly aren't replaceable. --NoahElhardt 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You will indeed need to replace that diagram. Not being good at drawing is not a valid excuse for using copyrighted images. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaceable in this context means it is possible to take a picture. The law has no regard for the difficulty of the undertaking, only that it is possible. Those pics and diagrams are "replaceable". Please familiarise yourself with our fair use policies, they are quite strict. pschemp | talk 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that some non-free images have been removed. However, there are still others, such as diagrams that can be redrawn and released under a free license, that need to be removed also. Pagrashtak 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaceable? If the subjects of those images are to be illustrated with photos, those are probably the only photos that will do it. Three are of natural hybrids (= only photographed by botanical travelers in borneo), and one is of an extremely rare upper pitcher. It is difficult to adequately describe the anatomy of an organ without an image, and the fact that this one is a black-and-white scan from a book underlines its rarity. One might make the argument that one or two of the photos aren't fundamental, but they certainly aren't replaceable. --NoahElhardt 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. One of the most amazing articles I've come across. However, apparently eight images are necessary to describe the plant's anatomy, in section "Plant characteristics" (five are shown, three are linked). This strongly suggests that an anatomical diagram is necessary to show these features adequately. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, one image gives an overview of the entire plant habit, while each of the other ones illustrates a single plant organ or attribute. No single diagram is going to adequately show leaf anatomy, pitcher anatomy, the appearance of dry herbarium specimens, etc., where a series of pictures can. (Just as no single diagram would adequately illustrate all the complexities of human anatomy, while an overview photo accompanied by a closeup of the eye, hand, and skeleton would get closer). My fear is that any attempt at a diagram would mean limiting labels to "petiole", "pitcher", and "flower", characteristics that are so obvious that anyone can pick them out of the overview picture. --NoahElhardt 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is that there is no way that (a) all of those eight pictures are absolutely needed, or (b) any reader should be expected to look at eight pictures to get an idea of the basic anatomy. And if the features are obvious, don't bother with them. In other words, don't argue about it, fix it! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not all 8 need to shown, which is why 3 are linked! I, as a reader, always appreciate links that allow me to access further information should I choose to do so. Nobody is being forced to look at the images or follow the links, and they don't clutter up the section, rather illustrating an extensive description nicely. If there's no clutter, the images are free, and each illustrates a different aspect of the plant's morphology, then I don't see what the problem is!! --NoahElhardt 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that this article as it stands is not one of Wikipedia's best, which is what you nominated it for. Make that section accessible, please. Simply refusing to take advice will result in this nomination failing. Meritocracy works. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy to make any necessary changes, including drawing any necessary SVGs, once I understand what it is exactly that you want! Is the text not clear? Do the images not illustrate the text? I really truly don't understand what exactly you want changed. If you want a diagram, what exactly do you want a diagram of? The whole plant? A pitcher (as is found in the genus level article)? What do you mean with the section not being "accessible"? Please advise --NoahElhardt 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am equally confused. Mgiganteus1 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that this article as it stands is not one of Wikipedia's best, which is what you nominated it for. Make that section accessible, please. Simply refusing to take advice will result in this nomination failing. Meritocracy works. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not all 8 need to shown, which is why 3 are linked! I, as a reader, always appreciate links that allow me to access further information should I choose to do so. Nobody is being forced to look at the images or follow the links, and they don't clutter up the section, rather illustrating an extensive description nicely. If there's no clutter, the images are free, and each illustrates a different aspect of the plant's morphology, then I don't see what the problem is!! --NoahElhardt 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is that there is no way that (a) all of those eight pictures are absolutely needed, or (b) any reader should be expected to look at eight pictures to get an idea of the basic anatomy. And if the features are obvious, don't bother with them. In other words, don't argue about it, fix it! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, one image gives an overview of the entire plant habit, while each of the other ones illustrates a single plant organ or attribute. No single diagram is going to adequately show leaf anatomy, pitcher anatomy, the appearance of dry herbarium specimens, etc., where a series of pictures can. (Just as no single diagram would adequately illustrate all the complexities of human anatomy, while an overview photo accompanied by a closeup of the eye, hand, and skeleton would get closer). My fear is that any attempt at a diagram would mean limiting labels to "petiole", "pitcher", and "flower", characteristics that are so obvious that anyone can pick them out of the overview picture. --NoahElhardt 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Too many pictures in general. The effect is distracting. You've got to narrow them down to the most informative and relevant ones. Also, there is no need for a gallery of yet more pictures at the bottom. Instead, there should be a link to the commons article or category containing them so people can follow that if they want to see another 8 billion pictures. I haven't checked, but if the pictures on commons need organization, that should be done too as part of this process. Any pictures that don't have suitable licenses for commons should probably not appear in the article unless there is some extraordinary reason. pschemp | talk 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed several images as well as the gallery. Mgiganteus1 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.