Talk:Marchantiophyta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Marchantiophyta has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Plants (Rated GA-Class) Marchantiophyta is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Antarctica(Rated GA-Class) Antarctica Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Antarctica, which collaborates on articles related to Antarctica. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: Related work groups:

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Number of species 2 References and Rating 3 GA review 4 Cladogram 5 Liverwort on the title

[edit] Number of species

This page should say how many species are found in the division.

That information is on the page (at least it is now). --EncycloPetey 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and Rating

I have added a number of in-line references to this article. I expect its quality scale rating could be reconsidered as a result. --EncycloPetey 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Good at least. Aelwyn 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I could pass it, but let's wait for a non-expert to evaluate it! Aelwyn 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Well done! I have passed this article as a Good Article. Overall, the article was well written, the images were great, and the sources especially well chosen. However, a few things should be addressed before heading onto the road to FA status:

1. The statement in the lead "Some species can be a nuisance in shady green-houses" seems out of place. Maybe it could be moved to Ecology or Economic importance? Also, can you be more specific on the "some species" part?
2. The section "Economic importance" deals very little with actual economic importance. I suggest something like "Human importance" be used instead. If you continue to expand this section, I suggest using subsections to separate the history paragraph from the human impact and uses paragraph.
3. Additionally, the part about liverworts reducing erosion and such should at least have some sort of source.
4. The Ecology section is a little scarce. Perhaps you could explain the importance of Marchantiophyta in an ecosystem.
5. The last few statements in the "Life cycle" subsection are uncited. If you could cite them, that would be great.

Other than those specific points mentioned, if you'd like to FA this, you're going to have to expand a lot. Again, good job, and I hope to see this article sometime in FA nominations. bibliomaniac15 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cladogram

Uploading pictures of cladograms is commonplace (I've done it myself several times). Did you know we have a {{clade}} template? It's not that powerful, but it works and has some obvious advantages over images, like it can contain wiki markup, is easily modified and can be used more consistently. What do you think? Aelwyn 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Marchantiophyta Anthocerotophyta Bryophyta Polysporangiates

Anthocerophyta Polysporangiates Marchantiophyta Bryophyta

Two hypotheses on the phylogeny of land plants (Embryophyta)

Yes, I know about the cladogram template (see the one I added to the Plant page). I haven't yet redone the cladogram here for two reasons:

1. I needed copies of all the recent research on liverwort phylogeny that came out in 2006 and 2007. There were several such articles that did for liverworts what APG did for angiosperms. There was no sense in doing the cladogram before digesting those articles.
2. The {{clade}} template does not display properly on all platforms. On some systems, the cladograms generated by that template look terrible. Specifically, the bifurcations don't show up as equal bifurcations on a Mac using Safari. All the "upper" branches are rendered as a straight line with all the "lower" branches descending from that straight line to varying depths. The result makes it look as though there is a straight line of evolution towards one hapless clade while all the other groups are side-branches. The result is misleading about views on evolution, and promotes serious misconceptions that evolutionists have been trying to stamp out for decades. So, for the particular cladograms you're referring to (which are small) it doesn't seem worthwhile to use the defective template.

--EncycloPetey 12:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about the formatting problems under Safari. I wonder why they don't say a word about it in the clade template page. It's a pity it is so defective, it would be of great usefulness (I'm using it very extensively). Regards Aelwyn 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC) PS: I have the same problem under Konqueror (but not Firefox, which I normally use). Is there anything to do in these cases?

You can complain on the template's talk page, and sometimes that gets people to rethink before the template gets really widespread. The was a similar problem with the {{fossil range}} template not displaying properly on some platforms. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liverwort on the title

This is a bit of a conumdrum. There seem to be two identifications for the division of the Liverworts, and the option of Liverwort on the title is blocked by the page 'Liverwort', really a bit of a disambiguation. I suggest this page is removed, and the fact of the use of liverwort to name a flower type, could be in the introduction. No disambiguation should be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikieWikieWikie (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, ambiguation is necessary because there is more than one meaning for the word 'liverwort'. That is what ambiguation pages are for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)