Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration/Past PCs

Past collaborations

Ginkgo biloba (5 votes) April-June 2008

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
3. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (I can do some work on cultivar lists and/or articles)
4. EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
5. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• a living fossil, lots of paleontology and chinese medicine and horticulture all to boot. As it is a species, a lot more circumscribed and may be a lot more doable first off
• Since there are fossil species in this genus, the article will need to cover them as well, since it is the genus article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the first port-of-call will be to decide what information goes where and split off G. biloba...with living and fossil lsited and briefly described at a genus page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsuccessful nominations

Eucalyptus (2 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
2. cygnis insignis 11:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• one for the aussies....lots of economic issues too.

Flowering plant (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• hmmm, fairly important this one. However, complicated and may not be best one to start off with, but then again.....

Pinophyta (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• hmmm, conifers. Also fairly important. However, complicated and may not be best one to start off with, but then again.....

Plant (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Pros - obvious choice. Cons. Will be a big job

Pollen (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• most of the core parts of this article seem to be from 1911. See the discussion page for further suggestions for improvements.

Plant stem (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• unusual choice. all too close to a glossary plus some random observations like "many stems are eaten" (which would be trite except that it goes on for quite a few paragraphs, with little focus).

Deciduous (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• need to figure out the scope of this article (abscission and related processes? the ecology - kind of like hardwood forest but broader? And is the suggested merge with evergreen a good or bad idea?).
• Also, us aussies may get bored with this one..

Banana (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• may require less work, and folks from food and drink may like to join in. Would require less expertise in botany

Jasmine (1 vote)

Nominated March 14th, 2008;

Support:

1. --Melburnian (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• In a very poor state for a high-profile genus, even though the article has existed since 2002, no in-line references --Melburnian (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Avocado

Nominated July 10, 2008; Support:

1. EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• There is already a lot of good information in the article. To become a good article, it needs a little polishing and a few references. A bit more work could make this an FA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, a less ambitious project may be worthwhile...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seedling

Nominated July 10, 2008; Support:

1. EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a very basic article, but is still at a "start" level of material. There's a lot of room for contributions in terms of development, genetics, classification, and horticulture. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rose

Nominated July 26, 2008; Support:

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• A basic introductory one hwich may get folks interested. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tulip

Nominated July 26, 2008; Support:

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• A basic introductory one hwich may get folks interested. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Welwitschia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 votes, Nominated November 6, 2009; needs at least 4 votes by November 13, 2009 Overdue

Support

1. Columbiabotany (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Cabbagetreeeater (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• This plant is of general interest because of its peculiar growth habit and biology. It is evolutionarily very distinct and is a foremost example of a living fossil. The page needs nearly a complete rewrite, as much of the poorly written information is either incorrect, not cited, or both.--Columbiabotany (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. Welwitschia is often brought up in the classroom as a strange but important basal gymnosperm, and so this page is probably visited frequently. The very curious facts about Welwitschia that are listed on this page could be checked and properly cited very easily with a little help! Cabbagetreeeater (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)