User talk:Lmsvf6/sandbox

Liam, your outline looks very detailed and thorough and the content looks good. However, the way I interpreted the directions for the "outline" assignment was actually to write the first summary paragraph for the page which seems a lot like an abstract.--Fisherman!7 (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

These are just some small things: Your Title is in the Heading format instead of the Title page format and then your headings are in a sub-heading format. And then I looked at other wiki pages to see how other people did it, but you will use make a "References" spot that will automatically fill and add numbers when you use the "cite" button.--Fisherman!7 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

When writing your draft, I would consider just slightly relaxing the format from “single information point per single paper” to utilizing each paper to support multiple points of information or even using more than one paper to support each claim. I believe the goal should be to write a piece that informs the public of this new information you are adding, not necessarily to explain recent publications over your focal topic. I would also consider organizing your information into only two sections: Domestication of Current Wild Lineages (or something like that) and Genetic Improvements in Crops. The second section would then be dividend into 3 subjections, which are topics 2-4 in your current outline. Overall, well a thought out outline and interesting topic. LetMinnow (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Spelling
FIRSTDRAFT FEEDBACK: "After the BEFORE afore mentioned length of time the Kernza was born" Fisherman!7 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Spelling
"While the domesticated strain WAS as more uniform, the wild strains where larger and faster propagating." Fisherman!7 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Formatting suggestion
Maybe the story about kernza could be it's own subtopic because it takes up the mass majority of the section it is in. Fisherman!7 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Spelling
"Shifting focus from the wild relatives, IT IS its time to discuss the major domesticated crop plants researchers are working with." Also, since you have headers to divide things into sections, I do not know that you need this kind of a transition sentence. Maybe just a summarizing sentence would be better. Fisherman!7 (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Content
Under the header named "Specific crop plants that are being genetically improved" I was expecting examples of multiple species but instead only saw 1 example (of the ground but) along with some other information that was not specific crop plants either. Fisherman!7 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A few more ideas: In the "Specific areas..." section the different "areas" could be their own subsections. Should you have a citation for your statement about their being 9 billion people by 2050? You'll need to move your annotated bibliography somewhere else. Overall, it looks like you have put in a lot of work, have lots of content, and plenty of words. In general, I would focus on breaking up information into more, smaller headings and subheadings and looking to see if header names could be tweaked to better represent the content covered. I would also look for where citations may be added. You appear to have cited 10 sources already but an article with this much content should probably have more. I would possibly look at what your sources cited. Lastly, there are some places that seem to be written in a narrative format. The writing is clear to understand but is not written like scientific literature and uses more words than necessary. Now it looks like its mostly just displaying the information you have in a more organized way. Good work! Fisherman!7 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft 1 Comments
Overall, this is clearly a well-researched and extensive look into plant genetic variation in domestication. I think the main problem with your draft, though, is that it is written more like a research paper or publication than a Wikipedia article. To clarify, I listed some suggestions which I think would help give your draft a more Wiki friendly tone. LetMinnow (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Shift your emphasis from specific/complex genetics to more general “big picture” genetic components of each topic. Some of the heavily specific genetic talk can be difficult for the public to understand without background on the subject.
 * 2) In terms of your examples of research in the field, I would switch from intricately describing one or two research projects/publications to giving short summaries of the entire current state of the research in the field.
 * 3) Try to aim for a more neutral point of view than an opinion/review based point of view. Some of your sentences are too persuasive in tone. (I have listed some examples from your draft below).
 * “In a stroke of Irony these Researchers greatest success wasn't with a crop plant at all, but rather a hybrid grass variant known as Kernza.”
 * “To believe that the field of plant genomics is a static study or already completely understood would be a major underestimation of this rapidly advancing area of work.”
 * “Without some luck, manipulation of photosynthesis to increase yield is at present an unlikely prospect for the near future.”
 * “Unfortunately there hasn't been a large degree of effort put forth to achieve option one.”

Draft in main space comments: Global edits: I would make your titles more descriptive. For example, the first section you include, the first 2 paragraphs are about challenges faced by farmers, etc. I would make this its own section, not under the title (traits that are genetically improved). Change it so it is more encompassing, something like-challenges faced in agriculture and traits that are changed to improve these challenges) that is way too long but you catch my drift! or separate it into two sections! Additionally, all of your titles are the same size, so its hard to know if they flow together, are are completely new topics, if there is an overarching theme for a few of them, try rewording so they fit into a broad title, and then smaller sub-titles to help guide the reader. Local edits: There are a few places that I believe should be cited, that may seem like common knowledge but I would maybe just double check. I wouldn't want to get criticized for under citing!

Overall though I think it is super descriptive and detailed, you did an awesome job!

Beesbewithyou (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)