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
At least in terms of titles, inducible defenses and this article would be one and the same usually in terms of how the overall subject of plant resistance is typically treated. Not sure where else antifeedant compounds would fit in with other articles or this on, but that could more easily have its own article. What is already included at Plant_defense_against_herbivory#Antiherbivory_compounds works really well here though, so I wouldn't necessarily WP:SPLIT it out over to antifeedant either. KoA (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, inducible defences is a section of this article, so the article on that is a subsidiary of the "main" link type; could say the same of antifeedant; while mechanical defences and camouflage are subtopics that are not parts of those other two, so this article is clearly the parent of all four topics and inevitably overlaps with all of them. We might consider cutting down on this article's coverage of its constituent subtopics, making sure it summarised all of their main points concisely, but merges and splits are totally inappropriate here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because there are unreferenced sections and paragraphs. There is also a large "Further reading" section that should be evaluated to see if it can be included as inline citations or if it should be removed. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completed a pass through the article, with light copy-edit. Seemingly-uncited materials all fixed, either by removal or by citation. I've cleaned up the Further reading section; the short list of half a dozen textbooks that remains seems entirely reasonable for this sort of topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
