User talk:IsabellaGulino/sandbox

Very thorough evaluation. I liked your use of specific examples. Jmmcabee (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC) jmmcabee

Comments on Ideas Draft
I agree the space article could use a lot of fleshing out. Your suggestion is a good one. Make sure you are paraphrasing and not quoting too closely from the source. As for photoperiodism, looks like there are real gaps here that should be filled. I like your suggestion for an addition. Instead of saying scientists, it is nice to recognize the scientist who did the work by mentioning their name(s). There might be other suggestions on the talk page that have not actually been implemented. Jmmcabee (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Article Revision
Adding a paragraph about phytochrome is a great idea. I don't think you need to include the part about long-day and short-day plants here though because it seems like it is redundant with what is already in the article. Instead you could maybe add a reference to or sentence about phytochrome under each of those headings. Long-day plants flower when the day length reaches a certain minimum day length rather than just more light than dark. And short day have some minimum threshold for darkness rather than more dark than light. An actual textbook may be a better source than boundless biology. Jmmcabee (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on second draft
Looks ready to go! Jmmcabee (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

peer review
You did a great job of explaining this concept that can be difficult to understand. I think your summary of the main roles of phytochrome were much easier to understand than the current article. I am not sure how you want to integrate your writing into the current article, but a good portion of it would look good at the beginning. If you were to add anything, I would add more about the relationship between phytochrome and cryptochrome, since the current article does not discuss this in much detail. Looks great overall! Chaleb96 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)chaleb96

Peer Review
This was a very good evaluation on phytochrome. I like how you bring up Arabidopsis into the article, which is a common plant that is used in this type of research. You lay out everything in an organized and neutral tone. At the end of the article you mention cryptochromes, I think you should indent this section and make it its own paragraph instead of having it with the phytochrome paragraph. However, if you keep it it still works just as well. In the beginning of the article you make it clear that you will be talking about phytochromes, but mention cryptochromes later, for the sake of fluidity I think they should be separated. Also, your citations below are missing links. Overall, this was a really good summation on photoperiodism and I believe you have very little to fix.