User talk:Fisherman!7/sandbox

I think your setup is very good. I think the only major issue is that the pros and cons of being large vs small should be more explicitly explained. You may want to clear up the relationship between selective pressures and the seed size-number trade off. Why is it influenced? At the end you list the selective pressures but instead you may want to briefly describe the influence of each one, maybe just a sentence each as a summary of what is to come.

Some little sentence structure suggests:

"Today [seed sizes vary] from 0.0001 mg [in] orchid seeds to 20 kg [in] double coconuts."

The third sentence is a question and that's fine for articles and books but I have a feeling that way of writing is not used on wikipedia. Maybe you could say "research is beginning to divulge..."

"No one large event is thought to have caused a dis-proportionally large impact in the divergence of seed size" => "Large events by themselves are not seen as the cause of major divergences in seed size" and specify what is meant by "event".

"[rather], [small events] are thought to [occur] fairly consistently through time [with minor evolutionary influence]".

"but a plant could produce a larger number of small seeds with the same amount of metabolic energy used to produce [fewer large] seeds." When I first read this I thought "less large" meant "not as small". Using "fewer" removes any ambiguity.

"because plants evolve to produce a [range in size and number] of seeds with their limited metabolic energy for optimal fitness in their respective environment."

"The physical and biological environment [have] large amounts of variation including [remove: large amounts of] variation in the selection pressures [acting] on seed size."

Great job! メガヒロ (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we were supposed to comment more on the flow rather than grammatic. I feel like your outline is great. However, I think you should briefly describe what information you will include in your sub-sections. Just an overview of what you will talk about (doesn't necessarily have to be information right now). Also, I have a question just to help me understand what the purpose of your article will be. Is there no article on this and your are doing one? or will you add a section? Will you talk about seeds in general or a specific seed. I am wondering, because not all seeds behave the same...so will you do multiple comparisons within the small sub-sections? I think those are my main concerns with your outline. But other than that your division of topics seem simple and logic! Awesome! Paecilaema (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

FIRST DRAFT FEEDBACK: I think instead of making your page title a heading we will re-title our pages when we move them to the mainspace. I think this is why your introduction has been placed below the table of contents and it includes the heading in the table. "Empirical studies show that species [that] grow in shaded environments tend to have larger seeds[4], shaded environments are found to have higher mean seed mass than adjacent open habitats[11], and larger seeded species have higher seeding [seedling?] survivorship in low-light conditions" Maybe split this into 3 sentences? Also aren't the first two points stating the same thing? The second sentence in the Drought section uses 'found' twice; maybe replace the last one with 'occurring'. Same in next sentence: "Another study found [that] smaller seeds [occur] in drier environments". Start a new sentence: "[However, this] data appear[s] confounded [since] larger seeds [may be] found in wet, shaded rain forests [which could be due to] shade [delete: could be]' having a stronger selective pressure [than drought] on seed size." I don't understand how this is confounding smaller seeds in drier environments. After the next sentence maybe explain why adapting to only germinating during the rainy season prevents seeds from being large. "The evolution of the seed size of a population could be impacted by the selective predation by granivors of either smaller [or] larger seeds". "However, this is not always the case, as sometimes smaller seeds are selectively preyed upon such as with Australian granivorous ants [which] [are only capable of carrying smaller seeds]." Later I found another 'who' in reference to plants, but I would replace this with 'which' or 'that' because 'who' is used mainly to reference people. "Larger seed size [may evolve] [delete: can be selected for] if there [delete: if there (repeat)] is a [selective] pressure [favoring the survival of more deeply buried] seeds [delete: to have higher survival rates] because [they contain more energy which is required] to emerge from further under soil or leaf litter." "[One such] pressure [that is] argued to cause [this type of] selection is [the recurrence of] fires[. For example,] in prairies [the heat from a fire] can damage or kill seeds near the surface of the soil but leave seeds buried deeper unharmed". "Seed dispersal is known as an important function of plants where [dispersing] greater distances"; the rest of this sentence seems a little long. In the Temporal Evolution of Seed Size section maybe you can delete the second sentence (but keep the first phrase) because it seems like a summary of a paper's methods, which is not as relevant as the results. I would try to find a way to say the next sentence without saying 'this paper' or referencing it. The next sentence states the methods of another experiment; I think this is unnecessary detail for wikipedia. "A stronger correlation between the change of seed size and climatic conditions [has been found when compared to] the presence or absence of animal dispersers[. This implies] that the size of seeds through time was [more greatly] influenced by the environmental conditions, which could have, for example, [pressured] closed forest vegetation to select for larger [seed sizes during the Eocene epoch]." In the next sentence you reference the authors with 'they', but again I would try stating this without referencing them or the paper. Also at the end of this sentence you list multiple epochs but refer to them as periods. Half of this is just grammar suggestions. Overall I thought it was very good! Good structure. メガヒロ (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi David,

I think you article is really shaping and I find it super interesting! I only have one suggestion, I would perhaps mention a few species examples so people can relate to the topics you talk about. Great job! I really can not comment on your grammar, because my writing style is different than yours. Good luck!- Letty 24.178.254.206 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)