User talk:Srowse16/sandbox

Great contribution in response to excellent reviews. --Amille75 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Laura Silverstein Peer Review: I. General comments: - I like how you cover many different topics associated with this plant. - I think you have good flow throughout this piece. - You may want to add a sentence to transition between paragraphs. II. Grammar: - Tiny suggestion, but maybe the first sentence would be improved if you took out the first it after "but." - The scientific name of you plant needs to be italicized throughout the article. III. References: - It seems like you have more than five good references. - You may want to site source 1 more than once in the third paragraph.

• I do not see your 8th source in the resources section but that could just be how it is showing up on my end.
• I would change the wording of the first sentence in the 5th paragraph. The sentence is currently just a little vague.
• I would personally find a way to remove the word like in the last sentence. I do not believe that the word like should be used in papers like this.
• I would cite your first source more then once in the fourth paragraph.
• In the 4th paragraph the first sentence just sounds a little weird to me when I read it

Jkunst1 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

1. General comments

• The main idea of these paragraphs seem to be that Digitaria exilis has many good qualities/characteristics, such as its easy sustainability, that make it an ideal crop candidate. Issues such as harvesting, implications sue to competition, and facts about it as a food source in some cultures was also discussed. • I really like how easy this is to read. It is straight-to-the-point and it flows very nicely. • I’m a little confused when you state that Digiteria exilis had not been pursued for domestication, yet it is clearly a grain that has been used in West African cooking over the years. Could you maybe clarify this?

2. Grammar

• Make sure to italicize your species in your final submission. • The grammar is overall really good. I could not find any spelling errors, and your submission flows real nicely from one idea to another. • I believe that you can write the shortened name of your species, D. exilis, only if you’ve already mentioned the full name in the same sentence previously. I may be wrong on that, but it wouldn’t hurt to check that out.

3. References

• You have more than 5 sources, which is great, and your sources also look like they come from good scientific sources/journals. The formatting for the citations also looks correct.

Overall, this submission was really great! It was easy to read and flowed nicely. Just check how your write your species name and you should be good!

~Divya Kodali