Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Arecaceae/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arecaceae

[edit]

I've worked a long time on this article and it is currently a featured article candidate (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arecaceae/archive1). However, I haven't received much input about it, and I have responded to all the input that I have received. I would like to know if there is anything more I need to add. SCHZMO ✍ 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.


  • Is arecaceae the only family in arecales? The Taxobox implies it,but it isnever formally state din the article.
  • The "conservation" section is not summarized in the Lead. Maybe add slightly more specific details in the lead too.
  • Jargon to dal with, either by replacing it with simpler terms, by defining it or linkingit to a proper article:
    • The growth habit of Palms...
    • "radially symmetric"
    • All tribes have pinnate or bipinnate
    • "a central pistillate and two staminate flowers" - reword completely
    • using chloroplast DNA - should be linked
    • The relationships of Arecoideae - Within or outside it?
    • Chemical and molecular data from non-organelle DNA
    • "Date pits"
  • It might be pertinent to link terms such as sepal, petal and stamen.
  • I'd like to see a specific statement about the characteristics of Arecacea. I.e. What are the characteristics shared by all species in Arecaceae?
  • The second paragraph in "taxonomy" is highly confusing I think boldening the subfamilies' names would be a good idea. Duplicating that content at List of Arecaceae genera (which should be linked as the "main article" of this section, really) would also be a good idea.
  • The sentence "Chemical and molecular data from non-organelle DNA, for example, could be more effective for studying palm phylogeny." belongs in a paper, not an encyclopedic article.
  • It would be nice to expand the "evolution" section, as WP:FAC frowns on single paragraph sections:
    • How has the range evolved in time? There were certainly palms in the past in places where there nowadays are none.
    • Have there been extinct species having unique peculiarities?
  • The first paragraph of "Uses and cultivation" is repetitive in mentioning Date Palms
  • "Economically important genera" is, for all practical purpose, covered by "Uses and cultivation", and should probably be removed entirely.
  • Try to find a better way to link to Hardy palms. The current one breaks the article's flow.
  • "after the Cabbage Palmetto, logs from which were used to build the fort at Fort Moultrie." - this phrase is very poorly constructed.
  • "The palm branch was a symbol of triumph and victory in pre-Christian times." Is therea known reason for that? A particular myth or association of idea?
  • The latin motto should be in italics without quotes
  • Remove the footnote refering to the HMS Nelson article or replace it with an external citation. (you could have a look at the two book used to reference said article.)
  • "Unfortunately", under "Conservation", is POV
  • You first state "The greatest risk to palms is destruction of habitat", and then you say "Palms rarely reproduce after such great changes in the habitat". This is kind of contradictory:it,s not been changed, it's been destroyed, implying there are not even palms anymore!
  • "cannot truly imitate the natural setting." What makes imitating palms' (or more specifically endangered palms') natural setting so difficult?
  • It appear obvious to the casual readers that many species could be easily cultivated to conteract some of these problems. Are the specific species collected in the wild difficult to cultivate? It should be stated.
  • "Two projects on palm conservation..." could these two projects be briefly described?
  • Is Schultz-Schultzenstein actually used for references? If there is no content that specifically comes from it, it might be better to remove it. We do not like using foreign language references in generic articles.
  • I'd like to see the web references expanded a bit. {{cite web}} is a good place to start.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Arecaceae/archive1&oldid=1248863508"