User talk:Escott17/sandbox

Excellent! I agree with most reviewer comments, although please do not interject any personal opinions in to the article, just stick with the data presented in the papers cited. --Amille75 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

General Comments: -- I think that it would do you well to include headings for your information. It may help the reader along as well as being a beneficial organizing tool -- I really like how you talked about how this particular plant is important "for a healthy ecosystem", but I do think you should include something along the lines of why this may be important to humans. It may be implied but stating it specifically would be really great!

Grammar: -- I didn't see any issues with grammar -- Scientific names are written well

References: -- There are 5 distinct references -- They are from scientific journals -- They are cited correctly

Overall: Great job, I think you did very well! Jorf5 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

1.) This article did a great job of introducing the audience with a brief evolutionary history of Leymus arenarius before segueing into relevant topics on manipulable traits for its future evolution. All of the information appears incredibly relevant for the theme of potential crops.

 a.)One suggestion I would consider is to try to combine the related information about nitrogen uptake and presence into one cohesive paragraph instead of two distinct ones.
 b.)Another potential suggestion would be to add a sentence or two after each study explaining why this trait or information is relevant to the theme of possible perennial crops as a way to unite each topic under an umbrella theme.

2.) I did not notice any glaring grammatical errors that made the writing difficult to understand.

 a.) A couple suggestions that I would make would be to change
  "having -> having had" in the first paragraph to make it flow better
  "extreme conditions -> high immunity to pathogens" to make the introductory sentence more concise.

3.) Your sources all look good, too.

 a.)I think for APA you only need the year following the authors names though. 
 b.)I also think that the volume needs to be in italics instead of bolded. 

Everything else looks good! Good work! Bradvost (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Leymus arenarius: Peer Review by Milan Patel: What is the main take home message of this article? The main take home message is that Leymus arenarius can withstand extreme temperatures and can grow exponentially in the presence of nitrogen. What do you like about this Wikipedia contribution? What do you dislike? I liked that there was a lot of background information on the species. It could be better organized by adding in different headings. Is there anything written that doesn’t make sense? Everything made sense and was cited. What questions do you have as you are reading the text? Be specific. How much better does Leymus arenarius grow in the presence of nitrogen? Grammar Do you see any spelling errors? Are there any periods or commas that are missing or out-of-place? Grammar is very good and there are not any spelling errors. Are all scientific names written correctly, italicized with the genus name capitalized and the specific epithet starting with a lower case? Yes they are References Are there five distinct references? Yes there are Are each of the references from a scientific journal? Yes they are Are the references cited correctly? Yes they are