User talk:Oakpinemaple/Panax trifolius

Peer Review
'''1.    First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

The article does a good job of supplying neutral unbiased facts. I think facts like comparing the roots to a potato did a good job of creating a useful image for readers. I was impressed with how detailed the information on propagation, and the inclusion of all the links to other pages.

'''2.    What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

Some statements can be shortened to make the article more direct. I would change the culture heading to "uses" because I think that better describes what the section is about.

3.    What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I would change the heading of the culture section, or include some more information on the culture surrounding your plant.

'''4.    Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

I am certainly going to include more information under the distribution header because of how detailed yours is. I am also going to look into the natural history of my plant to see if I can include information on that.

5.     Copy and paste the article including references into Word and determine the number of words in the article, do they meet the criteria (at least 1200 words).

Article reaches the criteria. Crater.CATU (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)