User talk:Anuragpolk/sandbox

Hi! It looks like you put a lot of thought into the review of the pollen article. You need to be thinking about a few topics to settle on one that you most want to write about. Under pollen, there are a few leads to follow. You mentioned pollination as an interest. Make sure to look for primary sources soon so that you can decide whether there is enough information to support a substantial contribution on your part. Try to steer clear of pollen tubes, because some one else is covering that. Lethornton (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You have a good start on the outline. You don't currently have enough in there to meet the assignment requirements of talking about the information from ten sources. Keep expanding your outline and get it ready for peer review. Lethornton (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Anurag's peer review
I think your draft flowed well and was very detailed but there were a few typos and sentence structure issues. For example, you wrote ‘biotic’ instead of ‘abiotic’ in the first paragraph. Your content is good but you did have a lot more on wind pollination than water. I would add more about water or maybe shorten what you have on wind. The examples you used were valuable but maybe try adding two or three more examples. But overall it sounds good!CDoris-Bio341 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Expanded student review This is more specifics from a peer reviewer.

Organization-didn’t start with overall talk on pollination, I was confused as to what part of the pollination article this would fit in.

Spelling- avoid should be abiotic in the second sentence, various to varies in third paragraph second sentence, seems like autocorrect changed words by accident so be mindful of that.

Grammar- with spend should be with spending, “with roughly 98% of all abiotic pollinators to use wind dispersal” should be using instead of to use, arose should be something like led to, when understand should be when understanding overall look at tenses for grammar but mostly good.

Tone-The tone was overall good it was professional and neutral throughout.

Content- A lot of the article is the same as what’s already there for  the pollination article so maybe find a section to work on or get into some more specifics. “why angiosperm only fact, In fact, it has been recently discovered the wind pollination, amphiboly, has been more commonly found that previously and could actually be a stable/transtional state for plants” was a confusing sentence. More could be said about about the transition from wind to water as opposed to just saying it happened, but it’s an interesting topic to write about. “which the rain fires the pollen to become vulnerable and then it travels down from one plant to another” was also confusing to me. The use of statistics and facts was good throughout. When talking about the specific species throughout I thought it was effective, but I wish each went more in depth when you used those examples. Lethornton (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor comments: You are making progress with your explanation of pollination, but your entry needs some work to meet the requirements of the assignment and to weave into what is already on the Pollination page. The expanded student comments above give you some more specific aspects to address. You also need to think carefully about how you will use your work with what is there already. For example, your first paragraph could serve as an introduction to the abiotic and biotic sections. You should add to what is there and not delete. The current article has vocabulary that you are not using, so it is important to keep that. The current article has some information on wind and water pollination, so consider how you can make your work complement the text that is there. You also need to be really careful about your writing. There are mistakes with abiotic vs biotic and maybe abiotic being corrected to avoid. Remember that rain is water, so they are not really separate methods. You should think about how to link your terms to other articles whenever you say something that is elsewhere in wikipedia. Finally, you have not used enough scientific information for the requirements of the assignment. Keep incorporating more information, and let me know if you need help finding sources.Lethornton (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)