User talk:EileenPlants/Crepis

Outline Feedback
The organization of the headers is straightforward, and I can imagine what your addition to the article will look like based off this outline. Overall, a more detailed outline would allow me to provide more thorough feedback (8/10). For instance, I would outline the mechanism by which polyploidy enables asexual reproduction in more detail.

Because the distribution and reproductive interference sections are mainly about the agamic complex, I would lump those three subsections into one large subsection with two or three paragraphs. "Crepis agamic complex" works as a header for this subsection, but you may consider a more simplified title like "asexual reproduction by apomixis", which sets the reader up to know that the subsection is about asexual lineages.

You may consider searching for more general information on how sexual reproduction proceeds in this species and adding it to the lead of the Reproduction section. Its okay to put most of the text in the apomixis section though.

In addition to linking to other pages (which is a really useful tool--I suggest putting in as many links as you can!), I would take time to explain terms like polyploidy in lay terms. You may also want to explain what reproductive interference is. I would explain that asexual reproduction is generally less beneficial than sexual reproduction, but apomixis cause asexuals to have a local advantage and sexuals to have a local disadvantages in populations where they co-occur. Overall, intentionally hand-holding the reader as much as possible will go a long way for your article.

I am happy to give more feedback and adjust the grade if you wish to make a more detailed outline! However, I think you will manage fine with going straight to the article draft. The article drafts and peer review will have a greater impact on your grade in this class, so I would prioritize moving on to those assignments. Elioeilish (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review: Globally there are several things I think you did good. Firstly, it has a large amount of information which is good. Secondly, there is a good amount of sources and citations. Finally, I think the divisions into different sections make sense and the subjects are distinct. Globally I think there are several ways it can be improved. Firstly, I think the division titles should either all be capitalized or non-capitalized. Secondly, I think there are some run-on sentences that could be fixed. Locally there are some things that are done well. Firstly, I think the evolutionary implications were explained very well. Secondly, I think the addition of links to other Wikipedia pages was done very well. There are also some things locally I believe could be done better. In the reproductive interference section, I believe more citations could be inserted. Secondly, I believe the crepis agamic complex section could be expanded to better explain it. Overall, I think the article is well done but just needs some more detail in some sections. - Ttbioclass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttbioclass (talk • contribs) 06:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer review: Global comment: Overall, this article is well-organized and provides relevant information about different types of reproduction, mechanisms of apomixis, and evolutionary implications of these processes. It effectively describes the Crepis agamic complex and the reproductive interference that can occur between apomictic and diploid plants.Two things the article does well are: 1.Describing the scientific terms in a clear manner: The article defines and explains technical terms like apomixis and apospory in an easy-to-understand way. 2.Using examples to illustrate the concepts: The article uses specific examples, such as the North American Crepis agamic complex, to demonstrate how apomixis can occur in different species and can lead to the suppression of diploid individuals. This helps the reader to understand the concepts more concretely. Two things that the article could improve upon are: 1.Including more information on the ecological context: The article briefly mentions that apomixis can facilitate range expansion, but it could benefit from providing more details about how this occurs and what implications it may have for ecosystems. 2.Providing more background information: it could be helpful to include a brief overview of the genus and its distribution before delving into the specific types of reproduction.

Local comment: There are a few areas where improvements can be made to enhance readability and clarity. Some suggestions for improvement: 1.Sentence structure: Some of the sentences are quite long and complex, which can make them challenging to read and understand. It would be helpful to break them up into shorter, more manageable sentences. 2. Wording: In a few places, the wording could be made more precise to avoid ambiguity. For example, in the sentence "Once apomixis enters the population," it's not entirely clear what "enters the population" is referring to. It might be better to rephrase it as "Once apomictic individuals are introduced into a population." 3. Grammar: There are a few instances where grammar could be improved for clarity. For example, in the sentence "Apospory in Crepis species occurs in the ovule of the flower," it would be more accurate to say "Apospory occurs in the ovules of Crepis species." Some things the author did well: 1.Use of citations: The article provides proper citations for the claims made, which enhances the credibility of the information presented. 2.Organization: The article is well organized, with clear headings and subheadings that make it easy to follow the information presented. 3.Detail: The article provides a good level of detail on the various forms of reproduction in Crepis, without being overly technical or difficult to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseb101 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 

Peer Review: Global Comments: Overall, the organization of the article is great and gives a rounded view of each heading. It could be helpful to explain a little more at the end of "Apomixis in Crepis", about the formation of the hybrids. It also might be good to explain more about how the risk of extinction is reduced through lack of introgression. Local Comments: The article has great flow and the sentences in each paragraph build off of each other. There is also good use of examples throughout to demonstrate points being made. For this sentence, "...research into apomictic species and species complexes has cast doubt on this" I might reword the ending and say "research into apomictic species and species complexes has begun to shine a light on this". I think these two sentences, "The largest group of asexual species is found in North America, and is referred to as the "North American Crepis agamic complex"[4][5] The agamic complex may have first arisen in the Pliocene, between 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago" are missing a period between them. ~

Great job on this! I think your overall structure and flow of the article looks great. I like how each subsection within Reproduction is more or less the same length, and how enough information is provided to give the reader a base level understanding of these different topics. As for what you could improve, something I think might make the article a bit more understandable for the layperson is adding a couple tidbits that explain the groups Asteraceae and Cichorieae. For example, in the Apomixis subsection, I think it might help to add that Asteraceae is the family that Crepis belongs to, and later briefly explaining how Cichorieae fits into this relationship. Further, it might make more sense to hyperlink the Cichorieae wiki page to the first mention of that group, as it's first mentioned in one paragraph without the link and in the next it is mentioned with the link.

As for local structure, you did a great job as well. I think you formed your sentences in a very readable way, and it was very easy to follow. You also did a good job of providing necessary citations. To make some minor improvements for readability, I think in the Apomixis subsection in the first sentence, you could maybe say "As with other genera 'within the family' Asteraceae" just to reaffirm that you're talking about a family. Also in the same subsection, I think you could shorten Crepis tectorum to C. tectorum, since you mention just before that you're talking about a Crepis species. Overall this is in great shape! Humblebear1 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to peer review
Based on the response from reviewers, I re-organized the subheadings in my article (using "Apomixis in Crepis as my section header) as well as condensing repeated/redundant information in these paragraphs. I also added information on how sexual reproduction works in Crepis in line with recommendation.

I also went through my sentence structure and tried to break up my overly-long sentences and be more consistent in formatting. I made suggested edits for clarity as well. I also added more information about the evolutionary implications for asexual reproduction & apomixis in the genus. Information about the geographical distribution of Crepis is already included in the existing main article so I didn't add it, except to note where agamic complexes occur.

Thank you for the feedback! EileenPlants (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)