Talk:Stereospermum kunthianum
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Citations
editThe full citation for a scientific name isn't of any value to Wikipedia readers; academic botanists interested in them know they can be found in IPNI or one of the other standard databases (e.g. Tropicos). In some cases material from the original description may be relevant (although never to establish that the name is currently accepted, for which a secondary or tertiary source is needed, as per WP:RS). For example, in an article about a species it can be useful to explain why the original author chose the specific epithet based on the original publication. But then the "citation" is just a normal reference and is treated in that way. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are many categories of botanist between the casual reader and academic botanists, some of whom would most certainly appreciate the references. The argument that the information may be found elsewhere, is specious and may equally be applied to any of the article's content, leading finally to a non-article. Part of the value of WP articles is that WP attempts to be relatively comprehensive, as any encyclopaedia should. The citations entry is only a small section of the article and cannot be considered a waste of space or irrelevant. Paul venter (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a specialist one. Also there's merit in having some consistency in plant articles. I suggest using the Featured Article status plant articles as guidance on what a good plant article should look like. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Layout
editPlease see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template for the layout of a plant article, once it reaches a reasonable length. This article can certainly have several sections already! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Medical claims
editWikipedia has very strict policies on making medical claims; see WP:MEDRS. In particular, it's fine to say that something is used in traditional medicine, but not to say or imply that it actually treats some disease effectively unless there is a reliable medical review supporting this. Similarly, for in vitro research, "the article text should avoid stating or implying that the reported findings hold true in humans." Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)