User talk:Mcclaine9/sandbox

This is an outstanding start and you found some great references. Reviewers have pointed out some important issues including length. The word limit is 500 but I said I would take 475. Let me know if you have any questions. --Amille75 (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Also regarding the "Elymus caninus" article:

Good start, but not completed! Here are some suggestions:

-Make sure to hit the 500 word limit so you have a quality article! -Find a focus for your contribution with regards to the evolutionary history and potential for this species -Need at least 2 additional sources -Making labeled subsections once you have all of your information would help make the information easy to follow! -I really liked how you included links to the wiki pages of key words. If you continue to do that with the new information that will make additional information easy for your readers to access!

If you have any questions on my comments don't hesitate to contact me! -Lauren Engel (lengel1@slu.edu)

Regarding Elymus caninus article

A. General Comments: i. This article gives a brief overview of Elymus caninus including its family and range. ii. This contribution is clean and well cited, but needs to be expanded upon. I would suggest more information about the plant's growing conditions, edibility, and morphology would be useful. iii. "morphophyte" is not a common term and should be explained more than it is. iv. After reading this article, I want to know more about when, how and why the plant was introduced to the United States in addition to the aforementioned explanation of the morphophytes.

B. Grammar i. No visible grammar errors. ii. Scientific names look correct, no grammar errors here either.

C. References i. Only 3 references. ii. The USDA source looks credible, but is not necessarily from a journal. iii. Not the correct format, need authors first if available, year in parentheses after authors, and no italics. Sream1 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments (Written by Marc Ritter)
1. I liked the depth of the article. There were a lot of points made that helped add to the overall understanding of plant cultivation.

2. The use of italicization in the article was correct, as you referred to the name of the plant correctly in all instances.

3. All the references were correct, and there were enough references. The references also all seem to be from scientific journals.

4. There was only one grammatical mistake that I found. In the second to last paragraph you write: "Introgression...were improbable"-->because the subject of the sentence is introgression, is is singular and your word should match. So just change the word "were" to "was"

5. Although the article is well-written, it might need to be added to since it doesn't seem to add up to the ~500 word count. Just add some more facts here and there that are relevant to the overall theme of cultivation.