User talk:Jputrasahan/sandbox

Peer Review
The lead section is quite compact and straight to the point. It eloquently explains what a defoliant is and prompts other interesting relating subjects. Also, I really like how you included the line regarding how defoliants have occasionally been utilized for biological warfare, this gives an interesting turn from what was expected from the article and prompts more interest into the content of the article.

The structure of the article is clean and straight forward. So far there is only a small amount of information in the article, yet this data is well represented and organized in an intelligent manner. Having the “use and application” section before the “health and environment one” is a logical decision and allows for a smooth read. The article has, while limited, a pretty good coverage of what a defoliant is, its uses as well as the health and environmental effects it has. The information is on topic and not overwhelming. I would still like to read more data regarding the processes and development that defoliants have had historically in future iterations of the article.

The content in the article is completely neutral and does not prompt any contradicting or controversial points of views.so far the literature in the text appears non-biased and exclusively based on qualified data.

The sources for the article directly relate to its content and I can clearly see where you acquired the data from. I like how you used not only 2 credited scientific journals but also a book publication (published by the University of Georgia) as well as summarized research data on the subject.

Arimeris3 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Arie.R