User talk:Pierrj/sandbox

Very thorough analysis. Maybe you could fix a few typos in the article? Jmmcabee (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Ideas Draft
Looks like you have identified some gaps and places for improvement. You have identified some good sources. Remember to keep the audience in mind. Who is likely to be searching on the terms? Lots of people are interested in the buzz pollination topic, so no guarantees getting assigned that article. Jmmcabee (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Article Revision
Your suggested changes and addition look good. Thanks for keeping it well-organized, so it's easy to see what you changed. In keeping with the plant behavior aspect, it looks like the article could use a little more about the plant response to the Nod factors, other than just root hair deformation. For example, don't the nodules themselves arise from an activation of the pericycle? Jmmcabee (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Peer Review
Very well written this seems about ready to be imported onto the main site. Its easy to follow the process step-by-step of how infection and root nodule development. I like where you added details, as its details that would not be relevant to other pages, such as how in "Other diazotrophs" there's a brief explanation how that species if different from Rhizobia or the pathway for how the presence of flavonoids eventually leads to the formation of a root nodule. Unless you plan to expand upon them, the last two sentences for "Infection and signal exchange" could be put into one paragraph since they both address exceptions to the process explained above. I Also noticed some of the citations are a few decades old, just make sure the information is still accurate. Changla (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice job on the edit of your article, the concept expansion and wording gives the article a professional feel. The structure of your edits follows a linear trend that explains the subject process better than the original text. The only thing I would suggest to you is to think about the audience that will be reading this article. Try to keep it simple where the subject allows, and highlight wiki-links when possible so that a non-college audience has the chance of possibly understanding what is being portrayed. Overall I think you did a great job on your article, the citation placement seems fine and even though some of the sources are older they appear reliable which is priority in a source. Ecoriam (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)