Great articles! The main takeaway I got from the first was on soil quality/salinity and its role in switching to a perennial slender wheatgrass species, and from the second I got that the soil content was essential to successful intercropping. For the most part, they were very detailed and straight-forward. I didn't see any wording or grammar that made the articles confusing. The only critique I have is that there were parts, especially when you were talking about "polyphenol to nitrogen rates" and biomass where I was confused because it was very specific information that seemed like a whole different topic. It might be a good idea to either rephrase this part in simpler terms or maybe tag that section to another wikipedia page that gives more information on this section of paper so that readers aren't confused. Other places you could do this is with the genus as a whole because readers may be confused as to what type of food crop you are referring too (unless this info is already on the wikipedia page). Regardless, you do a great job of relating this specific information to your specific subspecies. Something to check: for your references, I'm almost positive you don't have to put your date of access - so you might want to double check that (I think it's only for MLA that you do that). Nice work, though!
I thought you did a really good job in your wikipedia entry. What I got from the first entry was that the slender wheatgrass species is very promising because of its ability to grow in more extreme habitats and what I got from the second entry was that the soil content is very important when trying to intercrop successfully. I really didn't have any complaints on your entry overall. The only part you might want to add onto is where you had the quote "they can inhabit an area and produce a stable living situation quickly" you could try to give an example of exactly how quickly they can stabilize. I didn't see any grammatical errors and your citations look good besides the issue the person above me addressed with the date of access being in there. Good job!!
General Comments: Overall, I thought these were great articles. You have two very clear take home messages. The first being that Elymus trachycaulus has great adaptability in a wide variety of environments and can offer other benefits such as fighting against weeds and protecting against erosion. The second is that Tephrosia candida can successfully survive in stressful environments and nourishes the soil. I thought your information supported your main points well and the articles flowed very well. I was a little confused in the second article because the information about nitrogen ratios and binding may require some background information. In order to make this article more clear, you could include more background information on nitrogen binding, etc., or you could explain the information in more layman's terms.
Grammar: I thought your grammar was spot on. All the scientific names were written correctly and I did not find any problems with your use of commas or periods. I did not find any misspelled words. Great job!
References: Your five references are cited correctly at the end, and I like that you identified what information came from what source throughout your articles. They are each credible sources. Great research.
Scott Libera
Start a discussion about improving the User:Apaffra1/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Apaffra1/sandbox" page.
