User talk:Kumarns12/sandbox

Well done - I concur with reviews below. Nice work!--Amille75 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

General comments:
 * What is the main take home message of this article?
 * A. desertorum is an important crop for cattle and is very versatile. The species can survive in wet and dry conditions, meaning it has the potential to be grown in other locations. The species can tolerate many different conditions, meaning that A. desertorum is a species of interest for crop improvement.
 * What do you like about this Wikipedia contribution? What do you dislike?
 * I really like how the contribution was divided into 3 sections. Each section made sense and were very clear.
 * Is there anything written that doesn’t make sense?
 * No, this article is very clear and concise. Good job!
 * What questions do you have as you are reading the text? Be specific.
 * Paragraph 1: This may be a personal preference, but I never use the word “prove” or “proven” when I write about scientific articles. Maybe an alternative could be “Sine it is able to regrow over many years, A. desertorum has become a useful…” It is a great sentence though!
 * Paragraph 1 last sentence: so do farmers breed specifically for tetraploid A. desertorum? Have they changed breeding programs because of the study?

Grammar
 * Do you see any spelling errors? Are there any periods or commas that are missing or out-of-place?
 * Not that I saw
 * Are all scientific names written correctly, italicized with the genus name capitalized and the specific epithet starting with a lower case?
 * Yes

References Mfmasson (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there five distinct references?
 * Yes
 * Are each of the references from a scientific journal?
 * Yes
 * Are the references cited correctly?
 * Yes


 * The sources that you used seem to be referenced correctly and they are from five different sources.
 * I believe that in the second paragraph of the Growth and Development section the "grows" in the first sentence should be changed to just grow
 * I found it to be a little confusing that the word species was used so much. Possibly change some of them to specific species names.
 * I would possibly reword the first sentence. They way it is now just sounds a little weird.
 * The three paragraphs in the Growth and Development section do not seem to flow together as well as they possibly could

Jkunst1 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

General comments: Grammar References
 * What is the main take home message of this article?
 * Agropyron desertorum is a North American crop that has proven to be beneficial in the field of Agriculture, particularly for beef cattle used for human consumption. This crop is very versatile and can grow in both dry and wet environments but does have difficulty tolerating salinity during the seedling stage. Evolutionarily, the modern plant has remained genetically similar to the wild type.
 * What do you like about this Wikipedia contribution? What do you dislike?
 * I really liked how the article was divided into sections. This made the information both easier to read and understand.
 * Is there anything written that doesn’t make sense?
 * No, the article was very well written. It was both informative and understandable.
 * What questions do you have as you are reading the text? Be specific.
 * In the second paragraph of Growth and Development, I am not entirely clear on what the phrase “Salinity stress” means as it was not explained.
 * Do you see any spelling errors? Are there any periods or commas that are missing or out-of-place?
 * Spelling seemed correct. There was a comma in the last sentence of the second paragraph of “Growth and Development” that I do not believe needs to be present.
 * In the second paragraph of “Growth and Development,” the word “grows” should be changed to “grow.” Maybe also consider using a synonym for “a lot” since it was used two times in the first part of that sentence.
 * Are all scientific names written correctly, italicized with the genus name capitalized and the specific epithet starting with a lower case?
 * Yes.
 * Are there five distinct references?
 * Yes.
 * Are each of the references from a scientific journal?
 * Yes.
 * Are the references cited correctly?
 * Yes.