Talk:Vachellia cornigera

message: It appears that you are trying to describe the Acacia cornigera plant itself, however you seem to talk more about the ant that lives with the tree. My first suggestion would be to add additional information about the tree - leaf type, colors, sizes, soil types, etc... I would also recommend adding pictures - the ant, the tree and how they work together. A picture of their leaves and their nutrient nuggets might be interesting too.
Under the Uses Heading, I would suggest clarifying whether these rememdies could still be used today and if so, what would you look for? Also, how did the indians get the thorns if the ant sting is a good deterrent from predators. 
I would add too that you should reread through the article itself. Some sentences are slightly unclear, such as the first sentence of the second paragraph under mutualism. This paragraph could also benefit from a break point before it starts talking about the ant pheromones.
--Massonika 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Suggestions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Vachellia cornigera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214094354/http://arnica.csustan.edu:80/biol1010/com_ecology/community_ecology.htm to http://www.arnica.csustan.edu/biol1010/com_ecology/community_ecology.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The material presented is not well organized.  It is not cohesive and is very broken up into sections.  It doesn't have a very good flow.  The information that is presented is relevant and understandable.  The sources are outdated and one of the source's links does not work.  There is more recent information available.  There are a lot of links to other Wikipedia articles.  There can be more information added to this article.
The article does have an introduction but it doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article and its contents.  The leading paragraph does not briefly describe the article's sections.  There are a few headings and subheadings but the majority of them only have a few sentences underneath.  
The article talks more about the symbiotic relationship between the ants and the trees than it does the actual tree structure.  The only description of the tree is about the thorns.  The article does not talk about the tree structure, leaf shape, and thorn shape.  The majority of the article focuses on the ants.
The pictures are good but there can be more pictures added to help describe the plant.  There is also better pictures of the ants mentioned.  
The coverage is unbiased and doesn't show any signs of bias.  There is no attempts at persuading the audience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannagallagher00 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation of Page