Talk:Isoetes

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ptero-ADH. Peer reviewers: Colgateplants, Epezzuto.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Guan1789.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

For the whole page shows on the Wikipedia, the organization for this article and followed are not well. This article doesn’t cover the topic comprehensively, partially. First, the order for each paragraph are unreasonable. This article have introduction part, but the introduction part don’t include the key point for the article which means audiences unable to get a sample overview by introduction part. Moreover, the evolution part are meaning less for audiences. The evolution section shows the relationship between the Lepidodendron, pleuromeia, nathorstiana, and isoetes. The better way can be combine this part with classification part. Change the arrangement of the classification also necessary. The classification of isoetes is hard because their vegetative characters will change with the environment condition. However, it still can do the sample classification. The total species for the isoetes are 130, but only 70 species exist. More than 30 present people found already extinct. Thus, speared the species for two part: species still exist m and species only can found in the fossil. This article only have five headings and no sub-heading, so adding sub-heading for the classification. Secondly, whatever the species for the isoetes, spores are important element to help people distinguish the species for isoetes. The whole article don’t provide an explanation for that. Audiences might feel confusion when they read the sentence “The best way to identify them is by examining the megaspores under a microscope.” When people put the megaspores under the microscope, how to identify it? What does the megaspores looks like under the microscope? In addition, the whole article main focus on the classification, some basic biological information need are missing. For example: In addition, for the description of Quillworts are missing some information such as the habits for Quillworts, the distribution of Quillworts. For the evidence and reference this article used, most of sources came from scientists organization website or professional institution. Few of sources and evidence provided by government department or university. Thus, the quality of evidences are reliable. However, the major problem this article exist is the link unexist. In the classification part, multiple link listed in this section are missing. Also, in the External links section, the information pasted on the web page are removed. Thus, finding new reliable sources or move some links are necessary. Overall, this article’s coverage is neutral and objective. It gives a good description about the scientific classification, and provides special detail about the shape, size for quillworts. The whole article don’t have many images and figures, but all images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and footnotes at the end. Some species of isoetes are distinct, it only can see in the fossil picture. This article use super link for those species, but put the images of fossil near the species might be a better choose. I prefer to add related images with the species, but in the talk page of Wikipedia, I didn’t see any conversation. Thus, audience might feel good about the super link method. —Guan1789 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2018‎ (UTC)Reply

In the description part, I add more information and explanation for how to distinguish taxa of isoetes. Moreover, i found a image in the Wikipedia community which is the megasporangia of quillwort under the microscope. I think it can be helpful for some audiences if they don't have any pervious impression for megaspores. In the classification section, i add more details for some species. For Isoetes brevicula that don't have any basic information in Wikipedia, i create a new article for them. Actually, a lot of species of isoeste need to improve their introduction or description. I focus on the habits of some species such as Isoetes histrix. I provide a extra link in the end of the article. This extra link is reliable resources that provided by a professional institution. This website have good explanation and classification for isoetes. Because the isoetes is a rare species thus the distribution is hard to collect all together. Moreover, some species are already extinct, so audiences need to know how to find the information by go through the textbook or archaeological material. This website gives detail for the distribution and current situation for multiple species. In the classification section, every time i add the habits for the species, i must provide a reference for it, and all the reference are recent resources. With the development of the discover of isoetes, some resources aren't reliable for public anymore. Finally, i check all the reference list and remove the unworkable link. —Guan1789 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2018‎ (UTC)Reply

@Guan1789: Please format your comment so it is readable and not a wall of text.--Kevmin § 06:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, do NOT remove other editors comments from talk pages, its against wiki policy.--Kevmin § 16:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I plan on adding a small section detailing reproduction in Isoetes and distinguishing it from other lycophytes, spore-bearing plants, and seed plants. I will post a draft of the section here on the talk page if anyone has comments or suggestions. --Ptero-ADH (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply