Talk:Halenia deflexa

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bstacey0811. Peer reviewers: Bvalley142, AlexYamanoha, Jacq5177-1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Halenia Deflexa

Several points to consider for the article in terms of editing and adding: 1) Consider adding more sources for information to increase the credibility of the article in question. Even small amounts of information can be more helpful to an article. 2) Keep consistent spelling or capitalization of words. In the beginning of your article, the name "green gentian" is not considered a name where the G's are capitalized but later on in the article these are capitalized. Try to keep this consistent throughout the article to ensure that you are presenting the information as formally as possible. 3) Consider adding more information about the plant in terms of the ecological impacts and facts. Although the information does cover a good basic scope of information with a basic description and picture, users might ask why this plant is important enough to deserve an article if there is not much information on it other than the basic biology and appearance. Consider looking into what this plant does or what kind of uses different parts of it may have. 4) There is one point of citation confusion I have while reading. The last line of the article seems to have a citation within it but the lack of one at the end of the sentence makes me question where this information may have come from. It may be apparent to the author of the article because they are the ones who are considered the "expert" on the information presented but this information past the first few words is slightly questionable due to the lack of a citation. This is a very minor detail but I want to ensure that the information present is representative of the goal of the article.

I hope that you will take some of the points into consideration but otherwise the article is well written and provides the basic information that was necessary to make it informative.

Thank you and best regards, Alex Yamanoha — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexYamanoha (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This article is good start but could use some revisions. Consider breaking up the information into subheadings to better describe the leaves, flower, seed, etc. This would make your article more visually appealing and easier to navigate to parts of interest.

Also consider using consistency with capitalizations and nurmerals. Paragraph two references a spur that is "up to a fifth inch long," to keep consistency change this to 1/5" to match the information in paragrah 4. In regards to capitalization of common names, this website states that common names are not capitalized. https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/zo150/mozley/nomencla.html

In addition, paragraph 2 is uncited, I'm not sure if the citation carries on to paragraph 3, but this can be viewed as confusing and uncited. The only reason this is a red flag to me is the length of paragraph two and the amount of information. I would consider adding a citation even if it is unneeded. --Jacq5177-1 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Good start to a new article but as others have said, it needs more references in order to be credible information.

Also, I would suggest breaking up the article into a few different sub sections so that it is easy for the reader to find the information they are looking for about this topic. I would also suggest having pictures of the Halenia deflexa and some external links to other sites so that readers can have visuals.

Bvalley142 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]