Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Botany/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

Botany

 * Nominator(s): Plantsurfer (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This is listed as a "vital" article. Several users have worked hard for months to get this article ready for featured status. It has just completed a detailed peer review. 512bits (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Basic question: what is this article about, botany or plants? After the History section, the article goes on extensively about plants—their importance, their internal chemistry, their genetics, how they interact with the environment and how they are classified. But all this belongs to the plant article. The focus of this article should be the meta-aspects (for want of a better phrase) of botany. For eg: how is botany subdivided? (it is telling that branches of botany is relegated to the See also) what are the different approaches to studying it (for eg social sciences have a structuralist approach and a Marxist approach etc)? Are there any ongoing debates? What are the major prizes awarded for stellar work in botany? And so on.—indopug (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Indopug. The article covers aspects of botany and plants in depth while failing to give the reader the least idea of what the science of botany is. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Withdraw' I withdraw myself from this FAC and request it be closed.512bits (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.