User talk:SirWilly22/Rubus pensilvanicus

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 descriptions of the leaves and preferred environmental conditions were very detailed.

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

There are a few minor typos (like spelling and grammar) and some sentences need rewording. Also, for any species, both the genus and specific epithet are always italicized.

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

Make sure the species and genus of any organism in the article is italicized.

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

I did not include any information about presence in wetland/non-wetland which I could add to my article.

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).

From what I pasted into Word, the article in the sandbox is barely short of 1200 words (1186 words). Kdubzfr (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)