User talk:Karkataceace/sandbox

Peer Review
i like the overall structure of the article and how it has gone through the basic structure. I think what could improve the article would be expand more upon the evolutionary catalyst section and tie it all together with the concept of hybridization. I think since the focus of the project is on the evolutionary significance, I would move the evolutionary concept to the last paragraph. I think finding other evolutionary concepts that ties in would be good as well.

I think the only minor edits to make would be to add more transitions at the beginning of each paragraph as I mainly see statements starting each paragraph as opposed to introductory phrases that can help tie together the paper Ironphd10 (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for your comments and suggestions. I found moving evolutionary concept at last would be good, hence moved it as last section. Also, trying to add some more statements supporting this. Karkataceace (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Tyler Peer Review
Hello, I like the subject of your paper and I think the information you provided is very interesting. There are some ways I think the article could be improved, however. One major way I think it could be improved is in the Types of Hybridization section. I think currently it establishes that there are two types, but it only goes into a basic amount of detail. I think expanding that and adding more information would be good and perhaps adding some examples of each type would be beneficial as well. Another major way I think it could be improved is by adding some pictures. Currently there are no pictures, but I believe adding some pictures of hybrids that you mentioned, genetic aspects, or even diagrams of hybridization would improve the article. A minor way I believe it could be improved is in the types of hybridization section where you say "Examples; Randomized genetic test reveals that the seedlings were hybrids from the parental species in Mango, known as interspecific and difficult to for plant breeding process", I feel like this part seems clunky and directly saying the word examples might not be the best way to get the point across. I feel like integrating this into a sentence or removing that part completely might be a good idea. Another minor way I believe it could be improved is in the Hybridization in perennial plant system section when you say "Perennial plants do not need to replant or reseeded every year", I feel like the grammar does not flow in this sentence so it might be better to say "need to be replanted or reseeded" or "Need to replant or reseed". Overall, I think you do a great job of getting the point across in an easy to understand way and only these few changes could be made to completely polish the draft. Ttbioclass (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your comment and suggestions. I tried to reorganize my article and removed some words like "reseeded...." and make concise too. Karkataceace (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Biva's review

I found the overall structure and connection of articles very relatable, and easy to understand to a general to scientific readers. Headings seems very connective and might be more strong by adding some images (if relatable). Also, I think, there might need some spelling corrections/grammatical (such as evidences, includes...). Evolutionary catalyst seems very important in the overall article, so it might be worth adding some more contents, if possible. In conclusion, I really like the topic and structure of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctngirl (talk • contribs) 03:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I made grammatical corrections and added some citations, as well as tried to make more concise. Karkataceace (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)