User:Nattesd1/sandbox

Hello! My name is Daniela, and I am from America.

This is a user sandbox of Nattesd1. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help

The article I have chosen to evaluate is that of Gnetum.

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

> Everything seemed to be relevant to the topic. The only thing I found a little distracting was the mention of scorpionflies, however since it is tangentially relevant I suppose it can be argued that it belongs here.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

> The article is purely informational, and otherwise shows no bias.

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

> Since there isn't any "viewpoints" for this article, there can't be any under or overepresented. Perhaps more information in the 'uses' section would be helpful however, since it kind of shows that there are very few uses for Gnetum.

4. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

> All the links do work, and are unbiased independent sources. One citation doesn't have a link, however it does have a full citation for the article so one could theoretically look it up. The sources, at least from the little I could read from the link, seem to support the article.

5. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

> Yes, these are independent, unbiased sources.

6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

> Nothing appears to be out of date, as all the articles references are within the last 20 years. However there are only about 6 sources, so it would be useful to expand this knowledge pool.

7. Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

> There isn't a lot of conversation going on about this specific page, but the few conversations that did take place are most about taxonomy. One spoke about how even though the page lists Gnetum as the only genus in Gnetales, but should include two others, in which case more information would certainly need to be added.

8. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

> This article is Stub-class, and of Mid-importance. It is part of the WikiProject Plants project.

9. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

> For one, it's not talked about in the talk pages often or extensively, the only conversation taking place over two years, over a decade ago.

1. Acacia is an interesting article that I could improve. For one, in the Talk page, people complain that the article was left "a mess" because of some overly scientific talk, as well as mentioning a controversy in the botany community too early so that casual readers wouldn't understand. Furthermore, the genus Acacia is undergoing a change to a different genus due to some recent information that I'd like to help with.

2. John Abercrombie (horticulturalist) is a pretty small article about a scientist. There are multiple WikiProjects that have this article as a stub-class, so I believe it is of some importance. The writings he's shown to have written or co-wrote are listed, but are not really talked about, so there's something I could add.

3. Abortive Flower is also a really small article, and its talk page is absolutely silent. However, from the little that is there, it seems like this term can be particularly important.

4. Calybium and cupule is a small article too, but what really stood out to me was that it only has one article as a citation. I think I could add more citations as well as pictures and examples of plants that utilize these things .

5. While studying for the exam, I found that Bennettitales is actually a good article to improve as well. In the Talk pages there is discussion about the title of the page (Cycadeoids v Bennettitales). Furthermore, the references used are going on to be more than a decade old - surely I can find more recent sources.

For the most part, I think the pages of John Abercrombie and Acacia would be a best fit for me to improve. However, I think Bennettitales might be the best for me to do.

I have decided on the topic Bennettitales for a few reasons. Firstly, while studying for the first exam I found them to be the most interesting. Secondly, though the talk pages seem kind of quiet, the points brought up by the few arguments should be addressed (clarity of what one's referring to). Thirdly, information from recent findings of fossils have expanded the time-frame of the extinct group as well as expanded on our knowledge of their reproductive parts. Here are a few papers I've found that I'd like to use:

Arber, N. E. A., J. Parkin.. (1907). On the origin of angiosperms. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 38(263): 29-80.

> Note: New article added 3/7/2018

Crane, P. R.. (1985). Phylogenetic relationships in seed plants. Cladistics, The Willi Hennig Society 1(4):329-48.

> Note: New source, added 3/7/18

Foster, C. S. P.. (2016). The evolutionary history of flowering plants. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 149:65-82.

McLoughlin, S., C. Pott, I. H. Sobbe. (2018). The diversity of Australian Mesozoic bennettitopsid reproductive organs. Paleobiodiversity and Paleoenvironments 98:71-95.

Miao, Z., S. Chunlin, D. L. Dilcher, Z. Zhe, N. Yuling. (2015). Anomozamites (Bennettitales) from Middle Jurassic Haifanggou Formation, western Liaoning, China. Global Geology 18(2): 75-87.

Na, Y., C. Sun, D. L. Dilcher, H. Wang, T. Li, Y. Li. (2014) Nilssoniopteris Binggouensis sp. nov. (Bennettitales) from the lower Cretaceous of northeast China. International Journal of Plant Sciences 175(3): 369-81.

Popa, M. E.. (2014). Early Jurasic bennettitalean reproductive structures of Romania. Paleobiodiversity and Paleoenvironments 94(2):327-62.

> Note: cannot use, actual data from the paper behind paywall

Pott, C., S. McLoughlin. (2014). Divariate growth habit in Williamsoniaceae (Bennettitales): unravelling the ecology of a key Mesozoic plant group. Paleobiodiversity and Paleoenvironments 94(2):307-25.

Pott, C., S. Schmeibner, G. Dutsch, J. H. A. Van Koijnenburg-van Cittert. (2016). Bennettitales in the Rhaetin flora of Wustenwelsberg, Bavaria, Germany.

> Note: Cannot use, too specific to Williamsoniaceae

Pott, C.. (2017). Lunzia austriaca – a bennettitalean microsporangiate structure with Cycadopites-like in situ pollen from the Carnian (Upper Triassic) of Lunz, Austria. Grana 56(5): 321-38.

> Note: New article, accessed 3/7/18

Ray, M. M., G. W. Rothwell, R. A. Stockey. (2014). Anatomically preserved early Cretaceous bennettitalean leaves: Nilssoniopteris corrugata n. sp. from Vancouver Island, Canada. Journal of Paleobotany 88(5): 1085-93.

Steinthorsdottir, M., C. Elliot-Kingston, K. L. Bacon. (2018) Cuticle surfaces of fossil plants a potential proxy for the volcanic SO2 emissions: observations from the Triassic-Jurassic transition of East Greenland. Paleobiodiviersity and Paleoenvironments 98:49-69.

Vajda, V., M. Pucetaite, S. McLoughlin, A. Engdahl, J. Heimdal, P. Uvdal. (2017). Molecular signatures of fossil leaves provide unexpected new evidence for extinct plant relationships. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1:1093-9.

The papers I intend to add to the article kind of sum into two specific categories. Since the Bennettitales article is kind of short, I'd like to add these two groups just to expand on the detail it already has.

> Evolutionary History and Relationships

The earliest fossils of Bennetittales were found dating from the early Triassic period (Pott 2017).^{[1] [2]}

The group became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period (Foster 2016). ^[3]

They were first identified by Engler in 1892 as separate from Cycadales, and then further differentiates into their two groups Cycadeoidaceae and Williamsoniaceae by Caruthers (1870).

Information about the history of Bennetittales is still being uncovered, as most recently the new species Anomozamites sanjiaocunensis was identified in 2015 (Miao et. al) and Nilssoniopteris binggouensis in 2014 (Na et. al).^[4]

The Euanthial hypothesis, first established by Arber and Parkin 1907, posits that angiosperms first arose from Bennittitales (Arber and Parkin 1907).^[5]

This was supported by Crane, who studied the morphological traits of the Bennettitales' fossils. His findings showed that, along with Gnetales, that Bennettitales formed a monophyletic group. This was based on the wood-like structures and rudimentary flower shapes the three groups shared (Crane 1985).^[6]

However, since the 1990s, phylogenies developed showed the extant seed-plant relationships as their own monophyletic group, excluding Bennetittales. This hypothesis is now the widely accepted theory (Foster 2016).^[3]

> Morphological Information

Many of the leaf traits were described by Ray et. al (2014). These traits include leaves attached adaixially (toward the stem) with a distinct midrib. Veins stem from the midrib at a ~90 degree angle, and stomata are found between these veins. ^[7]

They have tough cuticles as well, as they were able to withstand high SO2 levels in the Triassic/Jurassic period for a sizeable time (Steinthorsdottir et. al. 2018).^[8]

• The sources are labelled from the previous section, and this is only laying down the basics of what I'd like to include in the final draft of my article. From this process, some sources are removed/added from the previous sections, notes of which are in bold

Subheadings in this section refer to actual headings to be used in the paper, it's just simplified so it'd fit in my sandbox and is more visually appealing for now.

I have also moved things around in the original wiki article, copy-pasted to here. Sentences in quotes were part of the original article.

"Bennettitales (also known as cycadeoids) is an extinct order of seed plants that first appeared in the Triassic period^[1] and became extinct in most areas toward the end of the Cretaceous (i.e. they existed around 252 to 66 million years ago),^[3] although some Bennettitales appear to have survived into Oligocene times in Tasmania and eastern Australia.^[9] The taxon comprises two groups, the Cycadeoidaceae, represented by Cycadeoidea and Monanthesia, and the Williamsoniaceae including Williamsonia, Williamsoniella, Wielandella and Ischnophyton which had slender, branching trunks and either bisporangiate or monosporangiate strobili.^[10]"

Originally, Bennettitales were thought to be cycads for their strap-like leaves, however their flower-like reproductive parts separate the two groups. The respective groups within Bennettitales (Cycadeoidaceae and Williamsoniaceae) each have their own unique traits. Cycadeoidaceae had stout trunks and bisporangiate strobili (cones serving as their reproductive structures) and Williomsoniaceae can have either bisporangiate or monosporangiate cones, and distinctly slender and branching wood-like trunks.^[10] These bisporangiate cones consist of layers of protective bracts, a curved microsporophyll, and an ovulate receptacle.^[11] The bisporangiate cones remained closed at maturation, and most likely were obligate self-fertilizers. ^[12]

In general, Bennettitales have leaves attached adaxially (toward the stem) with a distinct midrib. Veins stem from the midrib at an approximately 90 degree angle.^[7] They have tough cuticles as well, as they were able to withstand high sulfur dioxide levels in the Triassic/Jurassic period for a sizeable amount of time.^[8] "Some were characterized by thick trunks and pinnately compound leaves that bore a superficial resemblance to those of cycads, differing primarily in stomatal arrangement.^[13]"

Bennetittales were first identified by Engler in 1892 as separate from Cycadales, and then further were differentiated into the two groups Cycadeoidaceae and Williamsoniaceae by Caruthers. The first major hypothesis developed was the Euanthial hypothesis established by Arber and Parking in 1907.^[5] This hypothesis posited that angiosperms arose from Bennettitales, as evidenced by the wood-like structures and rudimentary flowers. This theory placed them among the anthophytes, leading it to be known more commonly as the Anthophyte hypothesis.^[10] Based on morphological data, however, Bennettitales were classified as a monophyletic group when paired with Gnetales.^[6] Genetic data showed that modern extant seed-plants form their own monophyletic group, excluding Bennettitales.^[3] Modern theory suggests that "Bennettitales, Angiosperms, and Gigantoteridales form a clade based on the presence of oleanane.^[14] Recent evidence from examining phase-contrast X-rays of gymnosperm seeds suggested that the Euanthial hypothesis is supported^[15]. This is still a hotly debated topic. Mostly, it is understood that by morphological data, Euanthial hypothesis is supported but modern cladisitic tests suggest otherwise. ^[16] Uncovering information about this extinct group is still far from finished, as new species are being discovered such as Nilssoniopteris binggouensis in 2014^[4] and Anomozamites sanjiaocunensis in 2015.^[17]

Bennettitales are also linked to the diversification of insects due to their flower-like reproductive parts. Specifically, the origin of insect mouth parts is connected to Bennettitales and Gnetales.^[18]