User talk:Madhavpatel516/sandbox

Hi! Here is where I will give you some comments. Make sure to get material in your sandbox to show that you are making progress with this project. If you are having trouble with where to start, ask ASAP. Lethornton (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You have a great start to what you want to add and it looks like you are working the sources in well. Keep expanding to show how paragraphs or sections will work with/replace what is already on the page. Lethornton (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! This is my peer review. Let me know if you have any questions. Great job overall!

Organization If you weren’t planning on it already, you might want to organize your section into either full-on paragraphs and/or bullet points, which I’ve noticed is the typical format of Wikipedia articles. I think it would still be clear and make sense if you merged some of your points (like 3 and 4) into one cohesive paragraph, and dropped the headers from all of them. I’d also cite as you go, after each sentence, rather than putting all the citations after the header, so that each fact is more easily verifiable if you look at the citation. Otherwise, the content organization is great – it’s easy to logically follow and understand.

Spelling -Lead: “it” not is in the first sentence Spelling looks fine otherwise; I didn’t see any other spelling errors.

Grammar -For section 3, thermogenesis should be capitalized -The “the” for section 5 should be as well -13C should be superscripted -Nelumbo should be italicized Other than these notes, the grammar seems fine. Like I mentioned in Organization, you probably want to turn these into full paragraphs that can stand alone without the need of numbering or headers. Tone Tone sounds good – it doesn’t sound biased or too casual. Maybe more science words and terms could improve it somewhat. By delving into the science a little more, it would sound even more encyclopedic, but I think it’s fine the way it is since it’s a start.

Content -Lead: could you be more specific about what the AOX is other than the “different exchange of electrons”? I feel like it might be a little vague, even if you do go into detail later. -You maybe could add more detail to section 1, and get more specific on how AOX works in the lotus and maybe if it's unique from other plants and such. -In section 4, I think a better word choice for “theory says” is “theory suggests” since none of them, as you said, have been conclusively proved. -In section 5, I was confused on how loss of thermogenicity comes about - why/when does the lotus change from thermogenic to photosynthetic structures? Overall, solid content – I understood this topic clearly and easily. Nothing was too confusing and it all made sense. There was a good amount of science and specific details so that it wasn’t too vague. Parisornthep (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Parisorn! Thanks for the feedback! I think you accidentally thought my outline was my first draft - I had taken care of a lot of the feedback, such as the citations, formatting, etc when I had written my first draft, but no matter. I have edited my draft accordingly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhavpatel516 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor comments: You have added some good material to explain thermogenesis. It would help to link some of your words to other articles and provide examples of other plants that have this process. Your use of science seems appropriate for the section you are writing, but you have not met the assignment requirements for adding enough references. You could consider adding a few sentences to the superhydrophobicity section above thermogenesis. That would help balance the amount of information you are adding to the thermogenesis section. Lethornton (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)