User talk:Agschneller/sandbox

Review by A. Miller

This looks great - one suggestion - be careful not to include any opinions (e.g., whether or not this would be a good species for agriculture...) just explain the data and summarize their conclusions. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amille75 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Laura Silverstein

a. General comments: - Overall, I think you did a wonderful job! I think you have good organization and lay out your information well. - It may be helpful to explain what granivore is at the beginning of your piece. - In addition, it may be helpful to explain granivore's impact on environment and if it is good or bad. b. Grammar: - I may think about changing the word choice of "individuals" in the second paragraph. c. References - It seems like you have 5 good references. I think it is good that you cite them multiple times each so the readers don't get confused.


 * sorry for posting this twice accidentally

--- Peer review by Tharun Kotaru

General Comments: Great job! We both chose A. cristatum and our research together will contribute greatly to the main page. Your review did a decent job staying on the topic of granivore content and used valid and relevant references to support it. I like how in depth you explain the potential of the 6P chromosome in the second paragraph. The first two sentences in your third paragraph though become more generalized and really doesn't provide much to your topic on granivore. These two sentence I believe are already mentioned pretty thoroughly of the main page of Agropyron cristatum.

Grammar: There are maybe one or two minor fixes to be made in the first paragraph, but the second and third look fine to me. In the first paragraph, the first sentence could be broken into two sentences at the comma so it does not sound as awkward. Also you might want to change your third sentence to say: Current research indicates that the competitiveness of "A. cristatum" does not seem to be the cause of its increased granivory. The sentence immediately following this has a minor typo: Replace to "This study also proved" instead of "This studied also proved"

References: Your references look good. Even I used the fourth and fifth references in my review. Good job citing.

Tharunkotaru (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

General Comments: I think that this shows a great deal of promise of A. cristatum becoming an agricultural crop or at least improving other standing crops. One thing that I think would improve your section, however, would be to define what a granivore is before you begin talking about the importance of high granivore content. Also, perhaps delve more into how "Agropyron cristatum’s genes can be used to instill leaf resistance in other species of wheat," that sounds really interesting!

Grammar: I think that your contribution is very well-written, but there are a few grammatical things I would like to suggest. (1) In the sentence, "This studied also proved that although A. cristatum was found to have higher granivory, after 2 years the difference between its granivory and that of native species is not that extreme and there was no apparent preference among the animals for either wheat", I would say "this study" instead, and maybe not say "proved". There is always a chance of error in studies, so instead of using "proved", perhaps say "supported" or something like that. Also, I think you should put a comma after "extreme". (2) In the 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, I would say "possesses" instead of "possess", because I believe that the scientific name gives a singular group, rather than a plural. (3) In the sentence with, "It has been used to cross-breed with other species to give other species of wheat", perhaps reword that so that you do not say "other species" twice. (4) I would also just delete the second sentence of the last paragraph, because you already spoke about that quality in the last paragraph. (5) One final little thing, I don't know why, but each time I read the first sentence of the first paragraph, I get tripped up. Perhaps try to reword that so it flows better.

References: Great references, but you should put the year of publication right after the authors instead of after the title. Also, don't forget to include issue numbers when applicable. Mitchelln175 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)