User talk:Saelem/sandbox

I agree with all reviewers below - please revise accordingly and let me know if you have any questions. This is a great start! --Amille75 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A. General Comments: i.This article gives an overview of Indigofera glandulosa including its range, family, and basic growing conditions. It also focuses on the plants edibility and current and potential agricultural uses. ii. I really like how the author focused in on the agricultural uses especially in the context of a changing climate. I would section off some of the information so that it is cleaner and easier to find. The solid block of text is very dense. I think the information is fantastic, but titling sections would help it be more accessible to readers. iii. I personally did not understand the connection between the plants underutilization as an agricultural crop and its noncompetitive nature upon first glance. After looking at it again I believe this means that it is easily outcompeted by weeds, but I would suggest expanding this section with a short explanation. I would also suggest explaining the importance of the H2SO4 treatment of the seed coat if it means something important, or if not, remove that piece. iv. My main question is what exactly is meant by the plant not being competitive in its environment. I also am curious about what kind of research is hinted at in the last sentence.

B. Grammar i. "nodules with fix atmospheric nitrogen" should be, "nodules which fix atmospheric nitrogen" ii. Scientific names' capitalization is correct, but needs to be italicized.

C. References i. Only 1 reference, ii. The source is from a journal. iii. Format is almost perfect, but year should be after the names. Also while the citation format is correct, it is not cited correctly in terms of a Wikipedia article. Look at the coding help below for assitance. Sream1 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey! This is Soumya, a student in your evo class. I enjoyed reading your contribution and have some general feedback.

A) My main takeaway from your contribution was that Indigofera gladulosa is a neglected species that can be utilized in stressful environments, making it a good option for future cultivation in a global warming affected habitat. I liked that you focused on basic information about the plant, such as its family, species, growth characteristics and optimal growing environment. One area of improvement is expanding upon the last sentence, that there is research being done to see how to utilize this crop in food production. This would be a huge evolutionary implication that would be interesting to explore. I would also expand upon how this crop is is not used by many farmers and why.

B) There were no major grammar, punctuation or spelling errors. At one point, you said "nodules with fix atmospheric nitrogen", but I think you meant to say "nodules which fix atmospheric nitrogen". Also make sure you italicize the scientific names, capitalizing the genus name, but not the epithet name.

C) There was only one reference in your contribution. It was from a scientific journal. In terms of citation format, the year should be in parenthesis after the authors. Follow the format Dr. Miler provided in class, or Wiki should also auto cite it for you if you have a DOI number.

Great job!

Hey, my name is Kenn.

A) I really enjoyed reading your addition to Wiki. The main idea of your topic seems to be on the genus Indigogera gladulosa. I thought you did a good job describing the particular characteristics of this plant such as drought resistance and various other nutritional facts. You focused on the important aspects regarding this genus and kept it to the point. Other than what the the other critiques have said, I would just elaborate on the specific sub-topics of your paper. Nevertheless, this will be done in the final draft. B) I did not see many grammar mistakes or spelling errors in your addition. However, I would suggest to separate your whole paper into essays so the reader can get a better understanding on each individual subtopic.

C) Also note, as the other peer reviews have stated, that you only have one citation. You need a minimum of five and they need to be cited properly. I do not know whether the (Author, Year) citation is appropriate. I and most of the other students that I have seen have used footnotes instead. I would confirm with Dr. Miller regarding this citation format.

Other than that, your rough draft looks great!Kvattath (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC) kvattath