Wikipedia:Peer review/Thismia rodwayi/archive1

Thismia rodwayi
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished translating it from the French article (of which I'm the author), and I'd like some feedback, especially on style, grammar, etc.

Thanks a lot, Thouny  (talk), on 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sotakeit

 * Overall a well written article. Generally it reads well, though there are a few things that just don't sound right to my ears that I would change. It's particularly well sourced for a subject which you say has very little literature and available data.
 * Lead: The small number of known individuals of this species has put it under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Whilst this makes sense, I'm not sure how well it reads. May just be me, but I find it a little unidiomatic, especially suing the word 'individuals'. Perhaps something like: Due to its relative rarity, the species has been put under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995?
 * As it does not contain any chlorophyll, its only vegetative parts are a flower stalk and roots, both devoid of chlorophyll. Using 'chlorophyll' twice in the sentence sounds a little clunky. Perhaps getting rid of the first clause all together ('As it does not contain any chlorophyll')?
 * Its whole life cycle, and especially its reproductive one, is still mostly unknown need citing.
 * Perhaps a link to leaf shapes where 'obovate' is mentioned here.
 * Again in the description section, why is flower in quotes in the third sentence, but not in the second?
 * Perhaps renaming the Autecology section to something like 'habitat'? I don't think 'Autecology' would be readily understood by most.
 * Use of 'occurs' in the autecology section doesn't sound idiomatic. 'Grows', 'thrives' even?
 * Because of the anecdotal occurrence data concerning this plant: I don't like this sentence. It doesn't read well at all. Unsure what to suggest as a revision as I'm not sure what it is meant to convey.
 * Again, the use of 'cyrptic' here doesn't sound quite right. Sotakeit (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)