Wikipedia:Peer review/Carnivorous plant/archive1
This article has been thoroughly scrubbed by some good people, and appears to fit the criteria for featured article status. CodeCarpenter 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I just did a quick scan-through, and two things need to be addressed:
- While the article has a fair number of inline citations (~18), more are needed, especially in the first half of the article.
- The lead section is short, and should be expanded to two or three paragraphs.
I'll try and do a more thorough read through tomorrow and start addressing these issues. --NoahElhardt 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- this sentence seems to be missing something (at least I am confused):
The stalked glands that once made it (and are so evident in Drosera) have become the teeth and trigger hairs - an example of natural selection hijacking preexisting structures for new functions.
- The use of conventional is confusing in this sentence, later we find out that conventional for carnivorous plants is what it means.
The more carnivorous a plant is, the more conventional its habitat is likely to be.
- Why are there no completely carnivourous plants - that get their energy from eating animals, after all there are parasitic plants. Are there any parasitic plants that can sprout on an animal and digest it? (curious) GB 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)