Talk:Photoinhibition

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pm22kalta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GA nomination
I've nominated this for a GA assessment as it looks to be fairly complete and it would be good to have some pointers as to how it could be improved. I haven't edited it much but it was written by a researcher in the field and so should hopefully be pretty complete. I don't think there is a problem with it, but they did include their own paper, saying it was the most recent proposed mechanism for photoinhibition so reviewers may want to consider whether this is neutral or not. Smartse (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't go read the GA criteria, but glanced over the article a bit and the main thing I noticed is the need for a longer WP:LEAD which among other things explains more about what the significance of all this is (does it explain why some plants grow better in the shade, etc). Kingdon (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the need for a more comprehensive lead. I think that photoinhibition doesn't affect the rate of photosynthesis under normal, natural conditions because the damage is constantly being repaired. So the effect on plant physiology, ecology, etc. is likely not very significant. Though maybe that should be said (with a source, of course).  Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That was presumpous of me. Photoinhibition certainly does affect physiology, ecology, etc. and this needs examination in the article.  Here's one source talking about at leaset one aspect of that.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the way the author of the article presented their own work in the history section, I, too, think this isn't a biased or unfair way to present it. The way all the theories are summed up, "there have been x theories, the most recent is this theory" is a reasonable way to word it as the latest idea probably should be most prominently mentioned in the history.  All the theories are discussed elsewhere.  If they weren't, then I'd have a problem with it.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)