Dear Esculenta, perhaps you remember me, because you supported me with the editing of two WP articles, i.e. "Exsiccata" and "IndExs – Index of Exsiccatae".
I just made a draft article on the NGO ITCER in Kenya and I am unsure whether it meets all Wikipedia rules. Could you please help me having a look on the draft version in my sandbox? Or do I have to publish the draft article at first in the regular space of Wikipedia to be visible for all?
Hello! Unfortunately, I think your draft would have difficulty surviving the mainspace because of its sourcing. There's simply not enough independent WP:secondary sources that discuss this organisation in detail for it to pass the Wikipedia notability bar. The cited ITCER webpages will not count towards its notability, and the cited journal articles seems to be only brief mentions of the organisation (see WP:SIGCOV). If you're determined to get the article on Wikipedia, my recommendation would be to publish an article or two (in reliable sources) about the organisation's activities, and then use those published articles to improve the sourcing. The draft will remain in draftspace indefinitely (as long as it gets edited at least once every six months). Esculenta (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, and happy New Year! I've recently made my first foray into botany species articles with Coscinodon lawianus. I was unable to find any bryophyte GAs or FAs, so I didn't have much to go on beyond your lichens. I figured you would be a great person to ask to look over to see if I did everything correctly - you don't have to do a full GAN review of course, but I just want to make sure there isnt anything glaringly incorrect. Thank you very much for your time, and for your great work on lichenology articles! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've recently expanded several bryophyte articles as part the WP:PLANTS Stub to Start drive, so I do have some passing familiarity with this group. Quick feedback:
what's up with the genus page, which doesn't even mention this species?
check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template to see the project-recommended article outlay (e.g., they prefer "Description" before "Taxonomy" (not titled "Classification")
should include a citation to World Flora Online for the synonymy in the "synonyms_ref" parameter of the taxobox (it's the preferred database source for bryophytes)
there's a couple of sentences in Description that are really "Habitat"
dioicous and monoicous (rather than dioecious/monoecious) are the terms usually used for gametophytes of non-vascular plants
should check for any additional jargon terms that could be linked to the Glossary of botanical terms via the handy {{plantgloss}} template
the literature could be mined a bit more for tidbits of info; e.g., "[the moss] is home to extensive mite colonies and other microinvertebrates living in the soil" from here; Coscinodon lawianus is one of the most common mosses in the Larsemann Hills from doi:10.31111/nsnr/2015.49.360; doi:10.1007/s00300-012-1257-5 this source might have something to say about regional biogeography of the species
But there's not really a lot of literature about this taxon, so the article already seems pretty comprehensive. A few tweaks and it should be in GA-zone. Hope this helps! Esculenta (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta, there are a bunch of genus pages created by User:Estopedist1, where the list of species is just the first 2 or 3 (alphabetically) listed on GBIF. These genus pages with incomplete species list are kind of all over the tree of life (but maybe none for vertebrates), but a substantial number of them are bryophytes. I've completed the species list at Coscinodon. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain it! I've noticed that bryophyte representation is pretty weak overall on Wikipedia, with abundant redlinks (even more so than with the lichens). @Generalissima: please write more articles! Esculenta (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, thank you very much for your advice and encouragement! I'm usually a history editor, but I might make more frequent bryology detours. It's a shame we have so few editors (relatively) focusing on GAs and FAs in botany. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]