Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Assessment

message: What is the relationship between List, FL, and SL (and for that matter, what does "SL" stand for?). Kingdon 01:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That assessment system was developed through discussion with myself and a few other editors who wanted to distinguish between complete lists (List-class), featured lists (FL-class), and lists that are incomplete (Stub Lists--SL). Hope that makes sense. I'll explain on the assessment page. --Rkitko (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the explanations. Kingdon 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List classes 

message: I'd like to nomonate Miracle fruit for reassessment, but as I can't find a page or section for nominating articles, I'm doing it here. It's rated as a stub, but it's clearly bigger than that. It should be Start class or perhaps C-class, if you're using that. Also, it has no importance rating. I think it should be rated as medium importance - it has a(minor) commercial usage, and there are several websites devoted to it (eg themiraclefruitsite.com, miraclefruit.co.uk, miracleberry.co.uk etc.) Totnesmartin (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and reassessed it from stub to C-class/Mid-importance. You don't need to nominate articles for reassessment unless you're really unsure. As long as you follow our assessment guidelines, you should be fine if you ever need to reassess one of WP:PLANTS articles again. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will in future. I'm more used to wikiprojects having assessment request sections, so thanks for allowing me to use my own judgement. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems like B unless there is some major area missing (herbivores perhaps?). Kingdon (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  assessment request 

message: Hello, I have been working on the stub article Coffea charrieriana and I would appreciate an assessment of the article. Thank you.
Chuuti (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request assessment of ''[[Coffea charrieriana]]'' 

message: I started Zanthoxylum americanum and assessed it up to start-class. I think with additions since then, it deserves higher than that, but I won't assess it further myself. I'd  also appreciate feedback on the article talkpage of what would be needed to take it up to GA-class. LadyofShalott 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request assessment of ''[[Zanthoxylum americanum]]'' 

message: Hi, I've added an alphanumeric selector box to assist browsing in the vast :Category:Low-importance_plant_articles and maybe will also add in one or more of the other categories. This really needs editing in at the locked :Template:Cat_importance level, so it works on all vast categories, but let's see if any hitches here before asking an admin. Best,  Trev M  ~  05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category template mod 

message: I've greatly expanded Asparagales, based on the Spanish article, as had been suggested, and rated my efforts at B. Perhaps someone could check! Peter coxhead (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment check 

message: Just created an article for phyllochron. I'm new to wikiproject plants — can I get some help with assessment and ratings? Thanks!! --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 07:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a Start class, Low importance article to me, so I've attached these ratings. I'm not entirely sure about notability; is this term used widely? The references are mostly by McMaster et al.; the term isn't in any of the plant glossaries I own, including the most recent 2010 Kew glossary. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ratings, Peter. The references are mostly to McMaster papers as two of them are effectively literature reviews with very large reference sections and I didn't have time to go through the entirety of the cites.  A google books search provides references in academic journals and books as recent as 2010 and there was a symposium (and 7-odd papers!) produced in 1993 on the usefulness of the concept so I figured it's still relevant and notable. I agree with the low importance rating (because of its speciality) but re:start class I'm not sure how much more the article can be expanded other than increasing the depth of references in the variability section, so in my (very much new-to-wikipedia) opinion, that seems a little low. Thanks again for the help! :) --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 09:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any other articles you can link from? My experience is that the article will soon get an  notice if there aren't more. This helps to clarify notability. Re Start class: the requirement for C class given here includes "The article is substantial". If there really isn't more to say, then it seems to me that this is more like a section in another article (Leaf perhaps) than an article in its own right. A redirect from "Phyllochron" can point to a section in an article rather than another article. To get an idea of the general quality of C-rated articles, look at a sample in this list. I would say that some are actually now B class, but it does suggest that C class articles are meant to be considerably more substantial. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phyllochron 

message: If someone could assess the chamomile article for quality/importance, that would be great. Just added the template for that. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamomile 

message: Can someone please reassess the article Chloroplast? It was originally a C, but over the course of about a year I've since octupled the content and I think it deserves a regrading.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered nominating it for Good Article status? It certainly seems better than the typical C rated plant article. I'm not very comfortable assessing articles as A. Since there are so few plant articles rated A, it's hard for me to get a sense of when that rating is appropriate. If you don't want to bother with a GA nomination, I'll take a more detailed look at it for B quality (from a preliminary look, it probably meets and/or surpasses B quality criteria). Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might nominate it for GA, though I thought GAC articles have to be free of article cleanup tags, and Chloroplast has tons of those (seven expand tags, one split tag, and a cn). Though most of them are  tags that only science nuts would care about. Thanks!—Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll read through it soon. I think the lead could use some expansion; a sentence or two summarizing each of the six main article sections (evolution, DNA, structure). And it might flow better with the second sentence ("As well as conducting photosynthesis...") moved to the end of the first paragraph (I'd do it myself, but am not sure which content the citation ending the lead paragraph is meant to cover). Plantdrew (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chloroplast]] 

message: I'm thinking we should be less conservative in importance assessments (i.e. less inclined to put article at Low importance). I noticed that the global assessment Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment has a ratio of about 3.5 between the different importance categories (3.5 times more High than Top, 3.5 times more High than Mid...). Plants has a ratio around 7 between the categories, though I suspect most of the unassessed importance stubs and most future articles will end up at Low. Importance assessments are pretty um...unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and I certainly am not planning on devoting any significant effort to changing them. But it might be worth considering bumping articles up in importance if changing the class assessment (or editing the talk page for other reasons). I'm inclined to default to Mid for any cultivated species or species with any significant human use. Plantdrew (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, articles about groups of organisms with very large numbers of species are bound to have a high number of Low importance assessments, given that every species is considered sufficiently notable. Look at Insects, where under 2% of the articles assessed as Top–Low are higher than Low, compared to our 17%. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that organismal projects will end up with a high amount of Lows. If the 18,974 Stubs not yet rated for Importance end up as Low (and I expect that almost all of the will), we've got about 10% higher than low. And there's a bias in article creation; we're more likely to already have an article on an "important" plant than an unimportant one. As time goes on, there'll be more and more low importance articles created. Plantdrew (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Assessments 

message: Hello,</br>
I am trying to work a bit on the rose cultivars and did some 'assessments' for articles included in the book "Roses" in the last few days, but while I did read the guidelines, I'd really like somebody to check them/help me to learn when a rose cultivar has enough information to be moved from stub to start or class C.</br>
Oh - probably not really important, but my interest in roses comes more or less solely from taken responsibility for the category Rosa on commons - I don't know anything about growing the plants. It could be that that part is cut short in my article improvements...</br>
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very subjective, but here's how I see it. The phrases in the assessment guidelines for Start-class that I focus on are "most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources" and "provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more" (which I read as meaning at least some readers will not need more). For C-class the contrasting phrases are, "article should have some references to reliable sources" and "useful to a casual reader". The most common reason why I'd keep something as Start rather than C is a lack of inline citations. Rose cultivars are pretty esoteric, so a few paragraphs can meet the C-class critera of "useful to a casual reader". Rosa 'Sunsprite', Rosa 'Abraham Darby' and Rosa 'Chrysler Imperial' are Start class, but I'd consider them as potentially low C-class if the referencing was better. These articles cover the basic information a casual reader would be interested in (cultivar origins, basic description of the plant and its flowers, basic horticultural info (e.g. disease resistance, cold hardiness)). Rosa 'Double Delight' is stub class, but at least briefly addresses origin and describes the plant, and also includes a photo. Double Delight probably isn't quite start class, but as minimal as it is, it's getting pretty close; again, cultivars are pretty esoteric and it shouldn't take much to satisfy some (if not most) readers. I do think a photo is probably the single most informative thing to include (far more useful to readers than a text description). I'm far more likely to consider something very minimal (like Double Delight) as Start if a photo is included. Absent a photo, I'd like to see at least a couple paragraphs for Start. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that does help a lot. Just one more question: the most reliable source I'm using is the Encyclopedia of Roses from the Royal Horticultural Society - but the German translation. Is it a good idea to cite a German translation of an English book in the English Wikipedia? Somehow that sounds very strange to me... Anna reg (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose cultivars - assessment? 

message: The assessment table hasn't been automatically updating (as it used to do) for several months now. I just found out how to run a manual update. There's certainly no need to run it daily, but every couple of weeks would be good. Leaving the link here for future reference for myself and others. Click here and select Plant. Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating assessment table 

message: Just to let the Project members know, I'm working on a substantial expansion of this article, with the aim of expanding it to Good Article and ultimately even Feature Article status. I've expanded it enough in the last week that I've nominated the article for a "Did you know...?" entry. A link to the nomination and also discussion of expansion of that article can be found at Talk:Monotropoideae. 
Also - I think the article could use a new assessment, but I don't feel comfortable as the so-far primary author of the article on grading it. I did move it up from Stub- to Start-Class, but I believe it could be a B- or C-class article at this point.
Cheers! Peter G Werner (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Monotropoideae]] 

message: Hi there!
I'm a fairly new editor, and I decided to adopt the stub Ipomoea oenotherae a little while ago. I machine translated the page from German, and then worked on improving it, adding a photo, checking references, etc. I received some significant help in cleaning up the machine translation from Bermicourt, and I know that Plantdrew cleaned the article up a little, but I need your help: I am a molecular biology student, and my knowledge of botany is incredibly limited. I'm not sure whether the technical botanical terms are accurate, or whether they are just Google Translate's best attempt at doing its thing. Would any of you be able to give it a quick look? It would be greatly appreciated. :) Cheers, Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to that. I cleaned up the non-technical German translation and also changed some of Google Translate's attempts to translate botanical terms using the assistance of www.dict.cc as well as a number of English-language online botanical sources on this plant. However as RR implies, it needs a botanist's eye! --Bermicourt (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've had a quick look, and it seems basically ok. Note that in the English Wikipedia, the sections of a plant article and their order should follow WP:PLANTS/Template. We wouldn't normally subdivide a Description section as short as this one, but it's acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ipomoea oenotherae 

message: Hi, I noticed that the Appalachian Province and Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Province articles were marked low-importance, but the North American Prairies Province was marked as mid-importance. Is there a difference between these provinces? Maybe the prairie should be marked as low-importance? -Furicorn (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Appalachian Province]] and [[Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Province]] importance 

message: As I mentioned at WP:TOL and WP:ARTHROPODS, I think it would be helpful to have some slightly more specific guidelines for quality assessment of taxon pages since there is a basic template that can be applied to all of them. See the draft begun at WP:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Taxon-specific quality guidelines and please modify as makes sense. Thanks! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion above, I would agree that adding a photo should not be an automatic bump to Start-class from Stub-class. IMO, the C-class criteria are set a bit too high: what they currently require sounds more like a B-class article. I would have to think a bit about what makes an article C-class but not B-class. Choess (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxon-specific quality guidelines