User talk:Green desert scrub/Phytotoxicity

Shannon's peer review
Lead Section The first sentence does an excellent job of explaining what the phytotoxicity article will be about without being too wordy or using too much jargon. Then the following sentence follows up with the general effects of phytotoxicity and the changes that can occur to plants. The lead sentence and the following are cited correctly, and there are wiki-linked words such as physiology and cell division. Overall the lead gave a good overview of what this article will entail. The information in this section isn't repeated in the body of the article.

Structure of the article The article's structure is easy to follow, with the main points of the article's subheadings. Within these subheadings, the author explains each topic clearly and concisely. The scientific jargon is wiki linked or described in the text. Some of the subheadings, such as heavy metals, have more information than others. Heavy metals could be the most important in phytotoxicity or just due to the availability of information. The only critique I have is moving the subheading herbicides to below fertilizer since they are similar in discussing agriculture practices.

Balance of information The article covers a wide variety of causes of phytotoxicity in plants. Each of the causes has a differing amount of information which I don't think is a bad thing. The section on heavy metals mentioned the significant anthropogenic causes and went into more detail based on relavence to the topic. The article is well balanced overall for the topic.

Neutral content  Overall the author maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. The author didn't use any specific data or examples to make their point clear. There isn't any bias from the author or anyone reference that is cited. I couldn't find any biased words like "most people" and "the best idea". The tone isn't overall positive or negative in explaining phytotoxicity.

References The references are all cited numerous times in the text. Each subheading has more than one reference that doesn't make the article unbalanced and favors one reference. All sentences with critical information are sourced correctly and are information from the right articles. The reference section is cited correctly, and the links are to reliable journal articles such as PNAS and a book. Overall the author cited sources properly in the article.