User talk:WesleyDeeg/sandbox/Robotic advances in agriculture

Peer review by Adam Brock

Sources •	Sources seem legitimate. Footnotes are included for all written paragraphs except the lead and economic arguments. I recommend trying to get at least one footnote for the lead. Also as a general observation I noticed that most of the footnotes are only at the end of paragraphs. If the source of the text varies between sentences then specific footnotes need to be inserted after each sentence. Works cited list is clear and appears to be formatted properly. One other suggestion is to start adding Wikipedia hyperlinks in text for any person or object that has its own Wikipedia article.

Organization •	Article logically flows from the technological changes to how they have impacted society. Lead is logical and gives some summary of the overall article. I recommend adding a little more content to the lead, potential splitting it up into little paragraphs that cover each major section of the article. In terms of moving sections, I think that economic and moral arguments could be combined into some sort of “pros and cons” section that is composed of individual paragraphs covering positives and negatives. Mechanics •	No super obvious or detrimental spelling and grammar errors for a draft, but the article will eventually need to be edited for spelling, grammar, and style in the revision phase. Tone is encyclopedic in nature. Just make sure that the economic and moral arguments sections do not have any personal bias mixed in with facts.

Content •	In general, the article was informative about the robotic involvement in modern agriculture. I think that there could be a little more detail in the sections that are already written, such as more specific examples of robots or statistics on the replacement of skilled workers over time. As more is written for the article these facts will logically fit into their respective sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABrock20 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Thanks a lot for your advice. I'm most likely going to be incorporating a large portion of this article into an existing Wikipedia article that doesn't exactly go over the same material I'm saying, but it on this topic. The suggestion of the pros and cons section is something I've been considering, and since you noticed it as well, I think I'll go with your advice on this one. The wikilinks have yet to be included into the article, but there's definitely still a lot of work for me to do. Thanks again for your advice and critiques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyDeeg (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)