![]() | A fact from Fen appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 April 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 5 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Wahoobbs!!,
Ruite006. Peer reviewers:
Vanpe022,
Steminist04.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
DirtGal. Peer reviewers:
Redhairrockstar,
LapisLazulite.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I rewrote this entire paragraph, changing only the grammar. However, I feel there are problems with this section beyond its confusing grammar (hopefully now fixed; as someone who worked as a professional copy editor, I know how to write sentences that make sense, and are not only grammatically accurate, but are also as elegant and laconic as possible).
The problems I see in the section is that there are many assertions of factual statements that are uncited. In addition, there does not seem to be a point to the paragraph; or rather, its point is somewhat off-topic for the article. I do not think the paragraph should be removed, but the *MAIN PROBLEM* is that its statements are ***ALL UNCITED***. I don't know about the subject and am not good at research. Whoever wrote the sentence, or someone with good research skills, would be greatly appreciated if they could solve this instance of Citation(s) Needed. The lack of citations on Wikipedia is its biggest problem. I will mark the entire section as needing citations, rather than labelling individual sentences; that would be too much, as I'd have to mark >50% of the sentences.
If anyone disagrees with my evaluation or edits to the article, feel free to discuss here on the talk page, whether or not you make an edit to the section or not. GngstrMNKY ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This article represents a relatively narrow definition and discussion of fens, in part due to a simple regional bias. Fens, especially as they are understood in the North American literature, may also be defined as groundwater-fed minerotrophic ("mineral-fed") wetlands with an accumulation of peat or marl substrate. Fens have been divided into broad categories according to the degree of mineral influence and richness in base cations such as calcium and magnesium. "Rich fens" are those with the greatest enrichment in such cations, followed by "medium" or "transitional fens", and finally "poor fens", which are similar in chemistry and flora to true bogs.
The discussion of the successional place of these systems could also use some additional information. In places with sufficiently cool and moist climate, paleoecological studies have shown that the formation of fen communities often begins with pooled water in topographic depressions and leads to the eventual build-up of peat above the influence of mineral-containing waters, producing a rain-fed or "ombrotrophic" bog. To the limited extent that a "climax community" is still considered a valid concept, open bogs or forested peatlands may be considered the climax community. In warmer or drier areas formation of bogs is not seen, rather fen communities may vary between forested and open status depending on outside "allogenic" factors such as grazing, fire, or flooding.
Examples of plants indicative of fen communities in northeastern North America are:
Rich fens: Brown mosses (Amblystegiaceae) Carex flava - yellow sedge Carex stricta - tussock sedge Potentilla fruticosa - Cinquefoil Senecio aureus - golden ragweed Thuja occidentalis - northern whitecedar
Medium and poor fens: Sphagnum mosses Carex lasiocarpa - wooly-fruit sedge Eriophorum vaginatum - tussock cottongrass Rhynchospora alba - White beakrush Chamaedaphne calyculata - leatherleaf Vaccinium macrocarpon - cranberry Larix laricina - tamarack
I changed the definition at the beginning of the article, but retained later material on succession. Thanks to RJP for comments. Wachholder0 23:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have heard that the name of the Finland country come from «Fen Land». Is that true? Just passing throught user.
The redirect page Carr (fen) points here, but the the only reference in the article to Carr is in a sub-heading under Flora. If we are going to keep the redirect, we need something in the article lede to define what Carr is, and hence why the reader has been redirected here. Otherwise it would be better to turn Carr (fen) back into a redlink, so at least we know that we don't know what it is. -- Chris j wood 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It is similar to a fen, but occurs more frequently throughout Northern Europe in areas of poor drainage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.185 ( talk) 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
We have:
This is neither clear nor helpful. Are we saying acidic=>bog, not acidic=>fen? Or not? -- Rumping 14:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The German translation for Fen is more accurately Moormarsch, not Moor, which means Bog. In some cases it could be translated as Niedermoor, the Dutch Laagveen or Danish lavmoos. The Lincolnshire en Cambridgeshire Fenlands, however, consist largely of Marsch or Moormarsch, Dutch klei-op-veen. Otto S. Knottnerus ( talk) 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
07:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
5× expanded by Ruite006 ( talk). Nominated by Wahoobbs!! ( talk) at 17:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
The article was not expanded enough when first nominated, but it has since been expanded more than five-fold (~3,000 chars to >18,000), and I'm glad we're being a little flexible on the timing, since this is apparently part of a WikiEd assignment. No QPQ is needed. The coverage of the topic is appropriately neutral and encyclopedic.
There's a potential plagiarism issue, but I think it's probably alright: it appears from
this web page that Ohio's Ross County Park District has exactly the same language on signage in their parks as is found in the lead and elsewhere in this article. The wording in question appears to have been created by
this edit in 2014, and my guess is that someone at RCPD borrowed some of Wikipedia's language for their sign; still, I thought it merited pointing out. The proposed hook is supported by the sources, but it's also a bit of a grab-bag of factoids; I'd prefer something more focused, maybe about how fens are
minerotrophic, whereas bogs are
ombrotrophic? Finally, the article's claims are broadly supported by inline citations to reliable sources, but there are a couple of paragraphs near the end that have "citation needed" tags; these either need to be supported or removed. Good work on the expansion! The article is tremendously improved!
Bryan Rutherford (
talk)
16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)