User talk:Mattakbar/sandbox

Peer Reviews
The lead section was general, provided background for the rest of the article, and was necessarily brief. The overall tone, structure, and language was simplified to a broad audience and neutral. Furthermore, all the sources are well documented and reliable, even though only one source was used throughout the article. However, please note that the evolution and history of gynodioecy are two separate subjects. The fact that Charles Darwin studied gynodioecy should be different than how and why it evolved and persisted. In addition, the determination of gynodioecy should be expanded to include more than a sentence. In terms of syntax and grammar, the phrase “due to,” is unnecessary in the sentence, “One likely explanation for its rarity is due to its limited evolution.” Even though I know this is a rough draft on an esoteric subject, the last paragraph in “Rarity” needs to be moved to the talk page or otherwise omitted. Bf255 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Like what Ben had said, your lead is very good in that it provides a brief overview of what is expected to be covered in your article. The structure is also ver clear and organized; good job figuring out how to use Wikipedia editing to make section headers and a table of contents! However, I also agree with Ben in that your determination of gynodioecy section should be expanded. This could also be a great place to add a specific example of this cytoplasmic determination in a species that exhibits gynodioecy. Overall, great first draft and I like the little reflection at the end. Chris6734 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)