---NOTES on "Botany:"---

GENERAL NOTES:

MULTIPLE SOURCES following bold claims.

Etymology explained citing several sources.

Somewhat lacking citations in history (ONLY IN GENERAL OVERVIEW SECTION)

Virtually every claim comes with a NEW citations (Indicative of several jorunals coming together to form a collective opinion and neutral standpoint)

KEY EXAMPLES ARE GIVEN WITH EACH TOPIC

EARLY BOTANY:

A few claims on importance given (possible signs of bias, perhaps citations on recognition may mititgate this issue)

Current talk/discussion:

- Rated GA-class SEVERAL times (WP Plants, WP Biology, WP HnG, Version 1.0 Editorial Team)

- Suggestions on adding links to further help

---NOTES on "Plant Physiology:"---

GENERAL NOTES:

- Severe lack of citations for an article of this magnitude in detail/generalization.

- Short history section

- Short section in food production (economic applications)

- Citations come from dated articles, perhaps some mention on contemporary/current review may mitigate this issue

"Aims" section:

- Citations lacking in claims made about plant survival and function/responses. Several examples are given as a means of providing specificity and detail without citation.

--- "For both of these organs to continue living..."

--- "Many flowering plants bloom..."

--- "Stress from water loss..."

Pigments subsection:

- Again, lacking several citations in claims, especially ones claiming that specific pigments "have been shown" to perform in a given manner.

Current talk/discussion:

- Rated B-class, rated top-importance AS PART OF WIKIPROJECT PLANTS

- C-Class by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team

- More references, specific examples, missing sections (e.g. History of photosynthesis investigation, Calvin cycle)

- Discussion on replacing "irrevelant sections" have been mentioned but without examples of said sections