Great contribution and great reviews. I have nothing further - nice job! --Amille75 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey! This is Soumya, a student in your evolutionary biology class. Your contribution to the Wiki page of digitaria exilis was great. I have a few comments to make your contribution stronger:
a) The main takeaway from your contribution was that this plant is nutritious because it contains amino acids that are beneficial to human health. Physiochemical properties, such as succinylation, also make it useful for dough production. I liked the way you organized the 500 words into 3 categories - it made the writing easier to understand from a lay perspective. If I could change anything, I would define words that are not familiar to the common reader. For example, you refer to "succinylation" and "caryoposis", but I am unsure of what those mean. Additionally, I would add more about the evolutionary significance of this plant, such as its origins and significance to the modern cultivar. These are the questions I have after reading your contribution: What type of plant is this (a wheat, a starch, a grain, etc); How can this evolutionary relative be useful to the modern cultivar?; What environments does this plant thrive in? It would also be helpful to expand on the ways this plant can improve human health (think bigger picture, not just at the molecular level).
b) There were no major spelling or punctuation errors. The scientific names are written correctly.
c) There are 5 distinct references, but 13 citations. It might be easier on the eyes to group similar citations. Each reference is from a scientific journal. The citations are done in the correct format.
Overall, great work!
Hey, it's Anna Paffrath, here to make a few comments on your contribution!
a) The main take home message of this article is that digitaria exilis is beneficial in the realm of food sources because its chemical composition may be beneficial to its abundance in protein and it also may contain several nutritional benefits due to its interactions with starches and lipids. I liked that you followed your points with relevant and supporting points. The parts that didn't make sense were those that talked about processes used to research this taxon. It might be useful to include the definition of succinylation, caryopsis, and fonio. Why is it important to compare your taxon to other starches?
b) Should "Volitile" be spelled "Volatile"? In the first paragraph, I think there should be a comma in between "methionine" and "which". In the second paragraph, you say "physiochemical" and then in the next sentence you say "physicochemical". Do you mean to say the same thing?
c)Yes, there are 5 distinct sources, all cited correctly from scientific journals. However, you should be able to cite the same source more than once. I would suggest looking into the editing wikipedia page for detailed instructions on how to do that!
Great work!! - Anna Paffrath
General comments:
- What is the main take home message of this article?
- Agropyron desertorum is a North American crop that has proven to be beneficial in the field of Agriculture, particularly for beef cattle used for human consumption. This crop is very versatile and can grow in both dry and wet environments but does have difficulty tolerating salinity during the seedling stage. Evolutionarily, the modern plant has remained genetically similar to the wild type.
- What do you like about this Wikipedia contribution? What do you dislike?
- I really liked how the article was divided into sections. This made the information both easier to read and understand.
- Is there anything written that doesn’t make sense?
- No, the article was very well written. It was both informative and understandable.
- What questions do you have as you are reading the text? Be specific.
- In the second paragraph of Growth and Development, I am not entirely clear on what the phrase “Salinity stress” means as it was not explained.
Grammar
- Do you see any spelling errors? Are there any periods or commas that are missing or out-of-place?
- Spelling seemed correct. There was a comma in the last sentence of the second paragraph of “Growth and Development” that I do not believe needs to be present.
- In the second paragraph of “Growth and Development,” the word “grows” should be changed to “grow.” Maybe also consider using a synonym for “a lot” since it was used two times in the first part of that sentence.
- Are all scientific names written correctly, italicized with the genus name capitalized and the specific epithet starting with a lower case?
- Yes.
References
- Are there five distinct references?
- Yes.
- Are each of the references from a scientific journal?
- Yes.
- Are the references cited correctly?
- Yes.