Jump to content

Talk:Flower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateFlower is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

50 + vegetables name

[edit]

There are many different types of vegetables name, but some common ones include: Cauliflower Broccoli Cabbage Brinjal Apple Gourd round bottle gourd Pumpkin Colocassia Root Lotus root Lady Finger This is just a small selection of the many types of vegetables that are available. Each type of vegetable has its own unique taste and nutritional benefits, and they can be prepared in a variety of different ways. Some popular ways to prepare vegetables include roasting, sautéing, grilling, and steaming. It’s also worth noting that many vegetables are also used in traditional dishes from around the world, for example eggplant in ratatouille, sweet potatoes in sweet potato pie, okra Harendradatta (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harendradatta 181.41.81.97 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-angiosperms in main image

[edit]

The article's main image contains 4 images of non-flowers: reproductive structures of Picea abies, Pinus pinaster, Equisetum arvense, and Cycas revoluta, none of which are flowering plants. 171.66.12.183 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - that's been fixed now.  Junglenut |Talk  23:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

[edit]

"I Bet Your Mother Would Be Proud Of You"- Frank Ocean.... WhoBeKnockingOnTheirDoor (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Your request doesn't seem to be relevant, provided the page. If I am misunderstanding, feel free to reply with a more specific proposition. Urropean (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Flower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 12:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comments

[edit]
  • Firstly, congratulations on a bold edit, shortening the article and addressing many defects in this old article.

Ok, to work.

  • The article remains overall rather heavily botanical. I did a biology degree and can read it; I doubt people without that background could cope with it. A couple of examples: "a determinate apical meristem" (what?); "microsporocytes which become pollen, the male gametophyte, after undergoing meiosis." (who? where? when?). Seriously, the average Joe can't read that sort of thing.

Lead

[edit]

Morphology

[edit]
  • I'm doubtful of the value of trying to deal with structure independently of function, as what is happening is that the overall story is getting lost through fragmentation into separate aspects, none of which make a lot of sense on their own. ("Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", to coin a phrase.) See 'Function' below for a suggested approach. I think the Androecium, Gynoecium sections are excessively technically named and inaccessible to most of our readers (please assume they are not botanists: they might be geologists, programmers, cooks, truck drivers — the material needs to be clear to those folks).
  • 'Variation' is well-meant but it introduces numerous technical terms, or just relies upon them without explanation ("When the perianth is bisected" - who's that? how? is this geometry? help!). The section (indeed most of the article) needs to go step by step, combining text, photographs, and diagrams. Every average Joe needs a wet towel and a couple of beers to understand monoecious and dioecious, for instance: a diagram is really needed there, to name just one instance.

Development

[edit]

Function

[edit]
  • This section is so short as to seem orphaned. I suggest we merge it with 'Reproductive', rename and promote that to 'Reproduction', and deal with anatomy and function together so you can say what each part is for and how it works (i.e. we need to relate structure, physiology, evolutionary function and adaptations to form a single story).

Pollination

[edit]
  • Average Joe: isn't pollination the same as fertilisation? No? Why not? Diagram please.

Fertilisation and seed development

[edit]
  • Why is this separated from reproduction?
  • Average Joe: what has fruit got to do with flowers? That's the level of explanation we need here before we go into exocarps and all th rest. Where is the diagram that shows flowers turning into fruits?

Seed dispersal

[edit]
  • Why is this separated from reproduction?
  • How is seed different from pollen? Average Joe thinks they're the same, more or less.

Evolution

[edit]
  • This gives a fair overview of the history (minimal detail, but that's reasonable in this context), but it omits coevolution with pollinators (flies, then bees...) which is crucial here; and evolutionary pressure continues now, so focus on 100 mya etc here is only half the story. See Entomophily, Coevolution for instance. We need some sort of summary of this in big-picture style.

Colour

[edit]
  • What is this chapter for?
  • Why is this separated from reproduction?
  • We need to relate physiology (biochemistry, pigments, structural coloration) to evolution rather more firmly. Yes you mention "benefits to the plant" but we need to be upfront about coevolution and signals to pollinators; indeed, the whole thing needs to be tied to evolution.

Taxonomy

[edit]

Uses

[edit]

In culture

[edit]

Scope

[edit]
  • I think the section on seed dispersal, while nice, is probably one step too far down the line of relation to flowers. It probably makes sense to include what happens to a flower once it dies (fertilisation etc.), but once that happens, dispersal can be generalised to all plants; flowering or not. Although it is true that only flowering plants produce fruit, which we have discussed in the article, is this enough to justify a summary of the whole topic? It seems the influence of flower morphology and ecology on dispersal is small; certain types of ovaries can be linked to certain types of fruit; certain pollinators may also eat the fruit. Thoughts @Chiswick Chap:? Dracophyllum 23:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Since we have articles on Fruit and Flowering plant and Seed dispersal, we have to touch on those topics only enough to mark them as out of this article's scope. The central topic is the function-with-structure of the flower itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So would you recommend deleting the section altogether? Maybe just two or three sentences after the fruit section? Dracophyllum 02:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd have a short subsection after the fruit subsection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added one. Dracophyllum 07:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • Lead: the old set of 12 images was good on simple flowers but failed to suggest the range of more complex types. The new set of 4 images does the reverse, with two showy blooms (one of them a cultivated rose, an odd choice for the lead really), an odd-looking orchid, and a Dracophyllum that would seem an odd choice (I note your username...), specially in a subset of 4 images only. I think the selection needs to be revisited, making the selection criteria clearer. For instance, we could have a simple radially-symmetric flower like a buttercup, a bilaterally-symmetric one like a peaflower or labiate, a compound flower, and a more specialized one like a Cymbidium orchid (and we say so in the caption(s)). I'm open to suggestions but we do need to have a plan.
    • I knew I wasn't going to get away with the Dracophyllum, haha. My rationale was: complex flower showing coevolution (my impression was that it was evolved to look like the bird but now I'm not so sure that is the case), a common flower with classic structure, a symmetric flower, and an inflorescence. Dracophyllum 22:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed the images to reflect more diversity, using gpt to give some pointers. Pretty good advice imo. Dracophyllum 09:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rationale is:
        • Magnolia → ancestral form
        • Orchid → extreme specialization; symmetry
        • Sunflower → complex inflorescence
        • Passionflower → structural complexity
        • Grass → reduction for wind pollination
        • Protea → massive, colorful composite structure (different style than sunflower)
  • Not convinced the image in 'Reproductive' is ideal; for instance the petals are poorly shown, and carpels, receptacle, and sepals are not visible. We want an image that presents the relationship of the parts clearly and simply.
  • The 'Inflorescence' image is not ideal either, as it really isn't even clear why it's an inflorescence. We want something that makes it obvious that we have many flowers together, preferably showing obviously different and easily visible male and female flowers. Other Araceae would be a lot clearer.
    • The Eryngium perhaps makes the flower-like-assemblage-of-flowers point most clearly; of course you could also use a dandelion or other composite.
  • The caption in 'Abiotic pollination' "pollinated through a combination of hyphydrogamy and ephydrogamy" will be incomprehensible to nearly all readers looking for information.
  • The 'Self-pollination' image gives no visible clue to the mechanism. It may be that no image will work here (in which case we shouldn't have one); this one certainly doesn't.
  • The old-fashioned drawing in 'Fertilisation and seed development' doesn't work well, with its brown background and small incomprehensible letters in place of labels. We need to do better than that.
  • I'm sorry to keep complaining but the 'Seed dispersal' images give me a lot of background greenery and not much in the way of explanation, in other words they're not clear and expressive. Why don't we have some dandelion-type seeds blowing in the wind, some hooked seeds attached to an animal's fur, a bird or mammal eating a fruit, and a splitting pod ejecting its seeds? It'd be many times clearer. I'm open to many other options as long as they're clear.
this one might do
      • Well, we need to decide on scope, but if seed dispersal is in, this might do.
Buttercup petals exploit both yellow pigment and structural coloration.
photonics
  • What is the set of 'Colour' images meant to be conveying? The caption says 2 are iridescent (how is the reader to see that, it's not at all obvious from the images), one is "photonic" (what's that?), and one is "purple-coloured", how does that help. Again, surely we can do better than that.
    Maybe, but the selection of images fails to span the width of the subject. We need one image and caption that says pigment, one that explains and demonstrates iridescence/structural coloration, and one that does photonic structures. That means diagrams (such as this one of the buttercup petal mechanism) not (just) photographs. The current image selection and captions just say "colourful, decorative" to the Average Joe, which is not the desired result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linnaeus's 24-part system in 'Taxonomy' is ok as a start, but given that it's way obsolete, we really can't stop at that; there must be at least one more modern image to show that we've moved on from there.
    Very good. It needs to be supported by a matching entry in the section's text, to the effect that while Linnaeus used morphological features, modern taxonomy adds phylogenetic analysis [123][124]. The pair of images seem to need an overall caption to that effect as well, e.g. 'Classical and modern approaches to taxonomy' (or near offer).Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    done Dracophyllum 08:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'In culture' has dropped all the old images; several were probably not worth their weight, but the still life was a good image for the topic, while the use for worship does deserve an image and the Varanasi image was clear (a human hand, worship object, flowers) and informative on that aspect. I'd say that an image of a flower festival or market (or both) was also well-justified here; if not also of a wedding, for instance. That would make a gallery of about 4 carefully-selected images that would enhance the section.
it might. I realise we've strayig away from Flower territory to Flowering plant, I.e. this article should not go into seeds, fruits, and life-cycles more than very briefly so as to point to other articles; the overlap must be minimised. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • [28] and [37] Leins 2018, and [32] AusínAlonso-BlancoMartínez-Zapater 2005 do not point to any citation. I note that Ausin 2005 and Leins 2010 are currently unused, so these are probably the broken connections.

Summary

[edit]
  • The comments above illustrate and identify two serious issues with the current article text:
    • Firstly, the article is not structured to present clearly the intimate connection between flower structure and function and the pollinators (and to an extent also the seed dispersers) that coevolved with the flowering plants.
    • Secondly, that story (where it is told at all) is not told simply and clearly enough, with text supported by diagrams and perhaps photographs, to enable the Average Joe to grasp the fundamental points in the flower story.

Second pass

[edit]

Text2

[edit]
  • The integration of form and function, discussed repeatedly and in detail above, has not been addressed. See there for comments.
  • Clarity has been improved with glosses but infelicities remain, e.g. Following the formation of a zygote it begins to grow... - what's "it"? Flowers often exhibit colour. - "are often colourful." the carpel and thecal organisation. It is a covering for the ovule... - what's thecal organisation, sounds like electing a pope? What's "It" in that sentence? tenuinucellar, and unitegmic ovules - that is way above Ordinary Joe's capabilities, and probably way past most biology degrees nowadays. I could easily give a dozen more examples. Please read through the whole article with your OJ hat on.

Images2

[edit]

All are from Commons and plausibly CC or PD licensed.

  • "The fertilisation cycle in angiosperms[note 1]" combines a complex diagram with basically hidden text and a mix of Roman and Arabic numerals. Combined with the "Diagram of a flower, with the pollen tube labeled PG" (and a whole lot of other Capital Letter labels unexplained, in an image we already criticised) is nowhere near the simplicity and clarity we need to achieve (in a single diagram). Further, the life-cycle is basically off-topic, as we agreed earlier. We need one simple story for this short subsection. I'm quite happy to help with drawing and labelling a diagram.
    • To save faffing about, I've boldly constructed a really Average Joe-level diagram and put it in the article. Feel free to do with it as you like (including editing it or making a better one).
  • I'm not convinced that Apple development is a good choice, as the pome is an odd "fruit" with enormous receptacle. Why not use something plain like a pea or bean?

Sources2

[edit]
  • Feldkamp, Hämäläinen, Harder, Lengyel, Mount, Norsworthy, Symon, Traveset, and Vittoz are all now unused.
  • Spot-checks [43a], [64], [88], [119] ok.
  • Links to Worldcat are not necessary (primary pub. details are sufficient) and are disliked by many editors.

Summary2

[edit]
  • Article is still not ready, see comments. (Reply there, not here).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flower&oldid=1287040555"