Talk:Fontainea venosa

I took a look as requested on my talk page
I took a look as requested on my talk page. Between then and now someone else took a look, and it was already a nice article before then. The tag notes that it has links to disambig pages. If that's the case, that should be fixed. Ether way ending up with the tag removed. Most of what I'd add is from the standpoint of reader empathy, an area where I'm particularly tough and so feel free to use or ignore anything that I say. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I found the following to be confusing and possibly self conflicting: "Studies regarding genetic variability within Fontainea species through RAPD analysis had shown that Fontainea venosa represents the most divergent taxonomic unit and was the only clearly distinct species. The Multigene CYP450 in Fontainea Venosa’ is also distinct from other Fontainea species.  A part of the confusing (and I read it a few times to figure it out) is that the plural for species is the same as the singular.  But the first part essentially says that there are several species within that group and the latter part sort of say that there is only one.  You might want to add a few words to clarify.    Also while the body in essence said "most distinct species" the lead says "the only distinct species"

My own opinion is that external links should be for people who want more info and that the reader should not have to read the linked article in order to understand the basic statement of the sentence. There are a few instances where this article has that issue. You could fix those by just adding a noun to the sentence when making the external link. For example, if xyz124 is a regulation, instead of writing "According to xyz1234 you are required to" write   "According to the xyz1234 regulation you are required to". For example, you did this with Cytochrome P450, This is taken to an even more confusing degree with EBC-46; you linked to an article that is not only not EBC-46, it does not even explain or use the term EBC-46.

I was guessing that you might prefer that I describe these and my thoughts here rather than just editing the article.

Overall, nice work! North8000 (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I need to get some sleep. Species names need italicising - all have lower case as start of specific epithet (i.e. the venosa word or equivalent) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your feedback North8000. I had deleted some of the links that lead to disambiguation pages and it seems that it now has been fixed. I will also take all of your following suggestions into account and make the necessary adjustments later. :) Once again, thank you! 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing and pointing that out! I have just checked all the species names again and all of them are now in italic. Thank you for bringing this up Cas! Sparklingkull (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay ...I have to ask.....what is "an adequately small tree"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Cas! Thanks asking. I understand that the phrase "an adequately small tree" might not be necessary and can be misleading. Thus, I have now reworded the sentence. Let me know if you think further editing needs to be done. Thank you! Sparklingkull (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for input
Hi @Sparklingkull Dracophyllum, (formerly Beeveria) here, this article has lots of good sources and info but there are some minor things I would suggest. First, it seems you are missing a critical piece of information regarding Fontainea venosa, which is what kind of plant is it? A tree, a vine, a shrub etc. This should be front in centre in both the lead and the description. Second, your sectioning seems a little off. I would move "Genetic insights in relation to closely related species" into taxonomy, the "Growth pattern and reproduction" section into Description, the "Protective management measures" under a "Conservation and threats" section - though wouldn't mind input from others on this. Other than that I would suggest using fewer paragraphs as it looks off and remembering that you can shorten Fontainea venosa to F. venosa. Excellent for your first article though!

 Draco phyllum  05:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum Thank you so much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. I have made the necessary changes in accordance to your feedback. I am just wondering how we can get the article reassessed for its current rank (stub, start, B class etc)? I have put my article up in WikiPlants project in the list of article for peer-reviewed help, but unsure how I can get it reassessed and hopefully improve the rank of the article.

Thank you so much for your help and sorry to bother you! Sparklingkull (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For assessments below Good article there typically isn't a formal process of reassessment. I would recommend having a look at the Quality Scale on WikiProject Plants and deciding for yourself. For now I'll be conservative and rate this as C class - though I may rate higher on closer inspection.  Draco phyllum  09:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To get to B class try making the genetic stuff a little easier to understand for the average person and proof read the article again. :)  Draco phyllum  09:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum Thank you again! Yes I have tried to fix up some things and an editor has rated it as B-class for now :). Thank you so much for your feedback and input! They really help and I really appreciate them. Sparklingkull (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Dracophyllum and @Sparklingkull,
 * Just be clear, I used a tool called Rater to assess the article as "B". Any logged-in editor can use it! Gderrin (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@GderrinHi Gdderin! Yes, thank you for your help assessing it and and for the clarification as well. Hope all is well. Sparklingkull (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested peer review
Hi, I have gone through the article as you requested and as I said it is amazing, didn't realize it is your first such work :) Other editors have already given much valuable feedback, I will just add a few of my thoughts based on how the article looks at the moment. The genetic stuff definitely needs simplification, as do terms like "elliptic to oblanceolate" (can be tough but try to add a few words or links to help one visualize). You need to use convert templates throughout consistently. Sourcing and referencing looks decent, though the very last line of the article lacks an inline citation. I would say you can try nominating this for GAN in fact after addressing all the comments here and comparing with existing plant GAs to check anything you might want to improve on. Good luck! Sainsf  (t · c)  08:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for reviewing the article and for your feedback! I will apply your feedback after this and might nominate it for GA. Hope you are staying safe during these times! Sparklingkull (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)