This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Is there any reason why Phragmipedium kovachii has been renamed as Phragmipedium peruvianum ? According to the World Checklist of Monocotyledons (Kew Botanical Gardens) Phragmipedium kovachii J.T.Atwood, Dalström & Ric.Fernández is the accepted name, while Phragmipedium peruvianum Christensen is a heterotypic synonym. If you can't find a better authority, I will move this article back to Phragmipedium kovachii. See: [1]JoJan (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These objections have been duly documentend in the article. But as long as P. kovachii is the accepted name, there is nothing we can do. JoJan (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look and make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The species was published as new to science... - "if you change "published" to "described" you can link to species description.
Remember that it is prose, hence the text should be in grammatical sentences, e.g. like this
link sepal, synonym, (?) Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, type specimen, subgenus, calcareous soil (describing it as "chalky" might be more accessible to readers...?), cretacean (Cretaceous?),
Add who Michael Kovach was (e.g. "botanist", "tourist") and nationality.
but seem to be larger than in other Phragmipedium species - "seem" is wrong word as no-one has seen them... "thought", "estimated", " "predicted" or something.
The lead needs to be bigger and mention a few important facts (status maybe and a couple of other things)
Fascinating story indeed.
Hello Casliber, thank you for reviewing this article, your observations have been of great help. I've taken care of the changes suggested to the article, the section on cultivation has minor changes as there isn't much info on the subject and I thought it should be kept brief and concise just to give a general view on this plant's requirements. Frank R 1981 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Frank R 1981: looking better....just lastly can we add anything to classification (e.g. why it changed subgenera). Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Status query
Cas Liber, Frank R 1981, it's been nearly two months since the most recent edits here; the only significant edits to the article were to the taxonomy section, though nothing was posted here about them. Where does this review stand, and what, if anything, is left to address in the article? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Major aspects: - I was waiting on inclusion of some subgeneric classification...but that is only one paper. And realistically it's not essential for the understanding of the subject so after thinking about it I will let it slide. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]