User talk:Honeydewmelon21/Rhus aromatica

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 article goes into depth very well explaining each topic very well, the explanation of what polygamodioecious kind of proves that the explanations are done well.

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

The only change I could see being made to make this better would be to try and get the conservation status information related to the ICUN Red list, it might give you some more words to use and another credible source.

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

I think the article is very well written, the only thing I would say to add is the ICUN Red List info for the conservation status.

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

I realize that I need a lot more information in my description, that could make my word count a lot longer which is what I need.

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).

They do not meet the word criteria(1200) according to the copy and paste I did(1100) (may be wrong or missing something) Jwarstle20 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Jwarstle20 (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)