User talk:Nattesd1/sandbox

Hi! You have some good ideas for how to contribute. I worry that the one on Abercrombie might be too narrow. You need to start looking for citations and post them in your sandbox to determine whether you can find ten things to expand those articles in a useful way. Lethornton (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you have some good ideas for adding sources and more explanation of the research on the group. You need to add a bit more structure to make the ideas appropriately organized and include links to other articles whenever you can. Make sure you get your sources in there numerically (to show up at the bottom as in the text) and keep expanding into paragraphs and sections. Lethornton (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Organizationally, the article is mapped out well and separated accordingly. The original article combines seemingly random information from scattered subjects all into two brief paragraphs. Your planned updates for the page make the passage much more readable and easier to follow. Spelling and grammar were not a glaring issue throughout the draft, except the spelling of 'adaxially' must be corrected in the 'Morphological Information' section. Reading through the entirety of the draft felt smooth and natural. The information given all seems relevant and fits well with the point that is trying to be made. The tone of your writing is unbiased, which is perfect for a piece of expository work. This seems like a good model for a draft at this stage of the process, and will help me to further my own work.Nestad1 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review: Thank you for your insight! I looked into the changing of 'adaxially' to something else, apparently it is an older word no longer in common use which is why it lines red as 'misspelled.' That was taken from the original article, so I am leaning towards keeping it at that spelling, since the definition is the same. --Nattesd1 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor comments: What you have written seems like a solid addition to the current page. I like that you are linking terms to other pages to help people cross reference information. Because part of your new entry includes text and references from the original entry, it doesn't seem like you have written very much for the assignment. I imagine that you had to sort through a lot of old information. I would like to see you add a bit more from modern sources. A quick search came up with more recent articles that are looking at newly described plants to compare them to these original groups. Your use of "adaxially" seems appropriate as a botanical term. See about adding a little more information as you polish off your work for the final submission.Lethornton (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)