Talk:Orchid/Draft

growth

Dalton, this article is growing nicely good job. Chris Day 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re originality

Hi guys--I reviewed this with respect to content on the English language WP, and it seems fine to me, i.e. not lifted.

I can't compare it to the German WP, Dalton, because I don't read German.

I'll be happy to give the grammar a once-over during the course of the day Aleta Curry 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Nice to see this developing so well. I'll be pleased to help with the copyediting too.Gareth Leng 22:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Super, Gareth! I really appreciate all the help I can get with the final proofreading. It is good that you guys are taking turns to help me, lol. Sometimes the text gets confusing and sometimes unfortunately the meaning is not clear enough. I guess just a few days more and it will be finished. I just need to add a couple of extra photos and complete the text of two sections: morphology and taxonomy. Then we will get rid of wikipedia note at the bottom. I'll let you know. Thank you! Dalton Holland Baptista 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubt

Quote: All orchids share, to different degrees, several characteristics that are uncommon in most other plant families, although for each of these characteristics, there are abundant examples of orchids without them. Characteristics that are always present include:

Gareth, is it clear enough that the Characteristics that are always present include: do not really are "always" present in every orchid? Each orchid has just some of them. (or many, or all, it varies) Maybe just three quarters have them all. Other thing, possibly the last item on the list that talks about life spam, would be a paragraph and not an item as I did. I don't change to avoid conflict of editing. Dalton Holland Baptista 15:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks Dalton, I'm taking a break now. Please correct anything I've got wrong or change anything you don't like without hesitation - you're the orchid expert here not me. I see what you're saying above and will try to get that right later.Gareth Leng 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this: on intro's 3rd paragraph we say that orchids take their water and nutrients from the air. I know that rain comes from th air too but, do you think people will realize that this is implied or it is better to explicitly say: "and mostly from the rain"?

I have added a 2nd paragraph on Uses with some medical names. Would you check it out too, please? Dalton Holland Baptista 13:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Orchids and the world's most famous fancier thereof

Any article about orchids that doesn't have at least a sidelong mention of Nero Wolfe, still, 66 years after his initial appearance, the world's most famous orchid fancier (see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Wolfe) will never, NEVER, NEVER get approval from this particular Constable. So either get stoutly to work, or find another Kop! Hayford Peirce 04:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Hayford, but I don't see "the world's most famous orchid fancier" (whether that's Wolfe or anyone else) fit in here, though we could consider mentioning Wolfe in Phalaenopsis if this really "was" his favourite orchid species. However, if you find a good orchid-related quote from one of these books, we might use it here. --Daniel Mietchen 08:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Long sentence:

In the Habitat section, there is a sentence:

Some are terrestrial, growing on grass fields and savannahs among the grass, or on the soil of shady forests; some are epiphytic, growing over trees or bushes, close to the soil and sheltered from bright sunlight, or close to the tops of their hosts, exposed to strong sunlight; some are lithophytes, growing over rocky soil or directly on the stones, some are psamophytics and live on sandy beaches, some are myco-heterotrophs that live in association with fungi, a few species are achlorophyllous holoparasites, or, rarely, paludicolous, in marshes and swamp areas.

This is rather, extremely, long. It'd be better to break it up, but I'm not immediately sure how, so I'm leaving it here for further comment. The article is generally quite excellent, I'm enjoying reading and copyediting it. Jesse Weinstein 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Approval on August 15th

Just so everyone involved with this project is absolutely clear: I, a Constable, will NOT approve this article on the 15th until I get either a personal email from Joe Quick, or a statement by Joe Quick on this particular page, that the article is up to date THROUGH AUGUST 15TH and that there are no changes, not even teeny weeny itsy-bitsy ones waiting in the wings somewhere. In other words, if the Editors, Authors, and Approval Manager can't give the Constables an absolutely up-to-date article, then I, for one, won't even consider Approving it. You might approach Matt Innis about this, but I *think* he agrees with me about this. Sorry to sound grouchy about this, but there have been instances in the past where the Constables have been filling functions that the Editors were supposed to have been doing.... Hayford Peirce 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno where the grouchiness originated but to add some clarity: I have nominated the article for approval but two other editors will be needed. --Daniel Mietchen 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, if an earlier version has been nominated, then that is the version that the editor(s) have actually approved of and that is the version that should be made into the approved version by the constable who does the mechanics. An editor could nominate a version from thirty edits ago and that would (and should) be the one to go through approval. Approval is for the best version, as determined by the nominating editor(s), which is not necessarily the most recent.

I hadn't noticed that we need other editors to join in for this one. I'll put in a little time on making sure that happens in the next few days. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We're all obligated to follow the CZ:Approval Process, so if everything lines up right, it will get approved. Everything is heading in the right direction as far as I can see so far. I agree you need two more editors, so there is more work to do.

Hayford was born grouchy, I think. Nothing we can do about that. We just don't let him carry a gun :) D. Matt Innis 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In Arizona, however, he is legally permitted to carry two concealed Samurai swords, razor-sharp.... Hayford Peirce 18:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

About 1/2 of all the 18,000 or so species of orchids are terrestrial. The intro conflicts with this.

I have some problems with this article.

Generally the article is biting off a whole lot more than it probably should. botanically is is often misleading or inaccurate.

The description of epiphytic is misleading. Epiphytic plants are typically defined as growing on other plants without being parasitic. The intro also states that "most" orchids are epiphytes. My references state otherwise... and of the roughly 18,000 discovered species about 1/2 are terrestrial ("The Orchid", ISBN 07064 08o8 X; Octopus Book Lmtd 1978).

In the Roots section, the overall description is not well laid out.

the description of primary roots and secondary roots would be beeter described botanically through the point of view of typical monocotyledonous plants... fibrous roots or adventitious roots where root-primordia issue from the stem tissue... versus the tap roots of dicots.

"chlorophyll organs" is poor terminology. Plants are green because of their chlorophyll that is housed in their chloroplasts... organelles if you please.

In the "SEEDS" section...it states;

"Almost all orchids have tiny, light seeds, formed by a few covering cells protecting an embryo."

the seed coat is formed from the integument. In the seeds I have analyzed with scanning electron microscopy their are many cells covering the "embryo".

"Micorrhyza" is to my knowledge NOT a genus. Micorrhyza refers to the fungi that form the symbiotic relationship of with the plant (roots typically)

In the stem section:

Also the author(s) spell Rhizome (rhyzome) two different ways. Most common spelling is "rhizome"

I could go on but there needs to be a much more comprehensive edit of this article before publishing. ...said Peter P. Faletra (talk)

Hi Peter, thank you for your comments. You said you "could go on" with comments — please do. We are not in a hurry with approval, and I have extended the provisional approval date by a month to allow for substantive edits. You are very welcome to join in there. --Daniel Mietchen 20:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are these issues that should prevent Re-approval? D. Matt Innis 18:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say, but they do prevent approval. Peter told me he would edit the article before the approval date — may be you can give him a reminder about that? I think I nagged him enough already. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll send him an email. D. Matt Innis 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter responded and stated that he won't be available this week and asked for some more time if necessary, so we'll check in when we get closer to the 15th of September. D. Matt Innis 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter has made a number of changes, and I have gone through the article again. I still see rough edges (particularly in terms of wording), but in my eyes, it is approvable. --Daniel Mietchen 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All we need is Supten to take another look and we will have three editors approving this version. Meanwhile, you can always keep copyediting. D. Matt Innis 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is approvable now. Supten Sarbadhikari 03:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Which version? The dated version is Sept. 12. Hayford Peirce 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I updated the permalink to point to the latest version. --Daniel Mietchen 07:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that Peter has seen that last edit by Daniel. D. Matt Innis 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

copyedits: the new edits are fine with me... ...said Peter P. Faletra (talk)

Approval on the 15th?

A Constable would like to know precisely what "has nominated the version dated 13:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC) of this article?" means. Is the "13:27" the time, or what? Hayford Peirce 15:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see why it should be anything else than the time. --Daniel Mietchen 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Because yesterday or the day before it read something like 11-10, or some it seemed, which looked like a date to me, making *two* dates showing, one of which was July something or other. In any case, I don't seem to have seen this format before. Hayford Peirce 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You can define in the user preferences how dates and times appear (e.g. when you type five tildes; my setting is "no preference", and I do not know where and how the default is defined). Dunno whether this explains why you saw this format for the first time. --Daniel Mietchen 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

One of those mysteries. A couple of days ago I looked at the "approval" box and it said something like "9-08 -- 15 July 2009" or some such. It really made me think that there were *two* dates -- it never occurred to me that the first one was the time.... Hayford Peirce 20:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.