User talk:Jwarstle20/Cornus drummondii

Peer Review
1.   First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The article explains use and overall description well. The ethnobotany section was written well and was easy to understand.

2.   What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I would suggest that the foliage section be expanded, or more descriptive. It is currently hard to understand for the average reader, but if definitions of the harder terms were added the article would be longer and easier to read.

3.   What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

the most important thing the author could do is add clarifying phrases in the foliage, distribution, and growing conditions sections.

4.   Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I saw that the author repeated some information in another section where it was applicable, which is something that I could add to my article.

5.     Copy and paste the article including references into Word and determine the number of words in the article, do they meet the criteria (at least 1200 words).

They do not meet the word criteria. Mbenigno22 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)