User:Cmlaplante/Rooibos/Ptero-ADH Peer Review

Assignment presents interesting and pertinent information

 * The scientific knowledge here is generally consistent with the literature, but improvements could be made. For example, the mutualism that legumes have with nitrogen-fixing bacteria is poorly explained. The symbiotic relationship is between the roots and the bacteria, not the rhizoids and the tuber. Also, if the article is about life history and reproduction, you ought to address more than just tubers. What kinds of flowers? Monoecious or dioecious? Environmental sex determination or genetic? What kind of mating system? Its not entirely clear if your section is more "fire ecology", "resprouting vs reseeding", or something else.
 * Clarity: Overall the writing is clear and easy to follow. However, some places do lack clarity. For example, ecotypes and genetic diversity are brought up in the same sentence and never mentioned again. There is a lot to unpack there that is completely unaddressed. Also, the lead in paragraph briefly mentions the commercial value of the plant. This seems out of place and should be mentioned at the end, not the beginning. The lead needs to introduce the main idea of the writing, which is reproduction. Again, clarity would be improved by indicating to your reader more what it is exactly you are focusing on here.
 * Information is clearly presented: Good
 * Illustration not present, there is a picture of a species not talked about in the writing?

For a single species

 * Comparisons made within genus: No mention of other members of the genus are made
 * Comparisons across taxonomic groups: While there is generalized discussion of other members of the the Fybnos floristic region, there is no direct, relevant, and specific comparisons to individual species that would otherwise enrich the content of the article.

Illustration

 * None

Assignment meets criteria

 * Word length appropriate
 * Links to other pertinent pages: I think the most pertinent links are missed here, especially links directly relevant to the article including nitrogen fixing symbiosis, tubers, root nodules, vegetative growth, resprouting, asexual reproduction etc.

Tone

 * Good job! neutral and appropriate for the most part

Mechanics

 * There are some awkward sentences and strange constructions that need to be reviewed. This would be fixed largely by improving the flow of ideas and the transition between sentences.
 * Example of a spot that needs work: "Wild populations can contain both sprouting and non-sprouting individuals however cultivated rooibos are typically reseeders not resprouters and have higher growth rates. Cultivated A. linearis can be selected for to have certain traits that are desirable for human use. Cultivated plants are diploid with a base chromosome number of 9(2n=18 chromosomes) however there is limited understanding of how this might differ in ecotypes"
 * In the above excerpt, you have three consecutive sentences that, although related, leave the reader with more questions than answers. When I read this, I noticed that the focus on cultivation distracted me from the life history of the plant. Some questions that I had here "Why should I care about cultivated Rooibos?", "Why should I care about cultivated Rooibos genome size?", and "What does genome size have to do with ecotypes?". More carefully signposting why this is important would greatly help the reader.
 * Spelling: its spelled Aspalathus linearis. Misspelled in first line.