User talk:Esf55/Heterocarpy

This is a good start to an article on Heterocarpy. I like your three sections Introduction, Evolutionary Significance, and Examples of Heterocarpy. Specifically, I think that the language and diction are not too complicated and not too advanced, which works nicely for a Wikipedia article. However, overall this article could use a little bit of touching up in the phrasing and polishing of the overarching ideas. The specifics are great. The following paragraphs outline specific critiques/suggestions that I have for your article.

According to the rubric, each article needs at least one picture and one chart/diagram to describe the concept. An image speaks a thousand words, and a diagram speaks even more. For heterocarpy, I would suggest putting in a diagram that shows a spectrum of different fruits and their different adaptations across that spectrum. This will show the reader that along with the visual differences, there are associated physiological differences. This is just one of many possibilities though.

Also, I would suggest adding a more diverse set of resources, because according to the rubric, there should be few citations from class and an abundance of diverse citations from the literature as a whole. Your draft, having 7 good citations, is a great start, but could use more. The rubric cites a minimum of 7 sources. On a more positive note, almost all of your citations are after 2000, which is great and up to date.

As far as content of the Introduction goes, as a reader, I am left wanting a little bit more explanation. Maybe in an attempt to be short and succinct, a little bit of important detail have been lost. For example, I think it would be great to add a sentence about the meaning of hetero and carpy separately so that the reader can appreciate the meaning of each part of the word separately and construct their own meaning from the two meanings. I also find the word "individuals" in the third sentence to be confusing. I think a better way of phrasing this may be to say that "unique fruit morphs germinate into individuals which have adaptations to specific environments. For example..."

The article could use more links. Wherever there is an opportunity to link another pre-written wikipedia article, I would do it. For example, in the first sentence, the word fruit could be linked. Most people know what a fruit is, but the technical definition is actually really complicated as we have learned in class this semester.

For Evolutionary Significance:

For wikipedia articles, it is important that the tone remains neutral and informative. I think that this section reads more like a well-written scientific article manuscript than a wikipedia article. I think the section is great, but small shifts in diction could really make is shine. For example, discussing the affects of climate change on heterocarpy seems a bit beyond the scope of the article and could be viewed as an "opinion" or seen like you're trying to "persuade." Maybe shy away from phrasings such as "It is important..."

For Examples of Heterocarpy:

This section is great but would be an awesome opportunity to insert a picture or diagram. Also just as a convention, Genus and specific epithets are always italicized. Is there a review that says all the families known to display heterocarpy? Is heterocarpy more common in the tropics, temperate zone? Angiosperms gymnosperms? These are questions that you can kind of address by including a diverse section of examples.

Overall, I love the article and am only giving this feedback to see it improve! Great job! I think overall, you did a great job following the rubric.

Jlwatts98 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)