Talk:Heliamphora
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Carnivorous plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Carnivorous plants. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Carnivorous plants WikiProject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
[edit] Overhaul - Collaboration
Thanks User:Denisoliver for getting this started. Thanks also to User:Mgiganteus1 for the work you did on this article recently. Let's see if we can turn it into an FA-quality article.
I propose the following article sections, similar to those used in the Sarracenia article recently:
* 0 Introduction
* 1 Morphology and carnivorous mechanism
o 1.1 Carnivorous mechanism
o 1.2 Flowers and seeds
* 2 Range, habitat, and environmental status
* 3 Classification
* 4 Botanical history
* 5 Cultivation
o 6.1 Propagation
* 6 Citations
* 7 References
* 8 External links
How does this sound? Feel free to make any changes wanted. --NoahElhardt 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I structured it a bit differently in my last few edits before reading this, but it's similar. It required me to add a bit of an intro to the current Characteristics section, which seems unnecessary. Would it look better if I eliminated the Characteristics heading and kept Distribution and Carnivory (or Carnivorous mechanism, whatever seems to fit better) as subheadings of Morphology?
- i.e.:
* 0 Introduction
* 1 Morphology
o 1.1 Carnivory
o 1.2 Flowers and seeds (yet to be done)
* 2 etc.
- What do you think? Finding and paraphrasing information is always easy for me--it's the structure of an article that maintains good flow that always seems to elude me. --Rkitko 07:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The current "Characteristics" sections seems to me to be a rather general overview. I'm inclined to just merge that section with the introduction, as it is pertinent to understanding the genus and is too general for anything else. Your suggested structure seems fine. --NoahElhardt 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
