Talk:Living stump

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forestry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry 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.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This article does not have nearly enough substance. There are no sub sections. Only the lead paragraph which is poor at best. The very first source is a direct "copy and paste" from the source with no quotations. It was not reworded. The second source doesn't back up the statement made, even though the statement is straight forward. There are better sources to chose from.

Several new sections could be created after the lead paragraph. A section about man made (silviculture) and natural causes (Chestnut blight) of living stumps. Another section could be about resprouting tendencies/strategies, and another for adopted ecological roles of living stumps, and their importance to wildlife.

In conclusion, this article needs an entire overhaul. The only piece worth keeping is the picture. The lead paragraph needs to be rewritten in a way that is informative and compels the reader to dig deeper into the topic. The subjects that follow should be thorough in explaining the biology, ecology, and environmental effects of living stumps. This is not a political article, so bias is avoidable, but strong scientific sources are necessary to give this article credibility.

Jo939612 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, the image used could be of higher quality. A professional photo showing a living stump attempting to resprout would be better in my opinion. Of course, since it is a photo not taken by an author of the article, it would need to be properly sited. I know that in my original evaluation I said that the only thing worth saving is the picture. I take that back. The picture needs replaced, and several other pictures make for a more balanced representation of living stumps.

Jo939612 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jo939612.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]