User talk:Annaliddane/sandbox

Peer Review Spencer.Schulz

-Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Yes, everything is relevant. Just the right amount of facts and elaboration on facts

-Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article reads neutral, some words I would stay away from just because it can make your article lose the sense of certainty.

-Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Nope, great balance of facts

-Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Great uses of citations and links!

-Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Yes, academic sources.

-Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

All up to date, great article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer.Schulz (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna, Your evaluation ended up on the course talk page instead of your own sandbox page. Make sure you know how to post to your own sandbox for future work. Jmmcabee (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee[reply]

Comments on Ideas Draft

The nutrient sensing page has a lot that could be added. You might be able to make your proposed sentence a little more succinct to convey the same meaning. If you ended up with this article, you could choose a section to improve or add. Looks like you found a great source of information. Buzz pollination was a popular choice, so I can't guarantee you'd be assigned this article. You have a good source and have found some gaps. Jmmcabee (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee[reply]

Comments on Article Revision

Looks like you found some great references. Get some text written up. If you want me to look at what you've written, send me a note via Canvas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmcabee (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on first draft

Content looks good. Explaining the importance of nitrogen seems very relevant. Maybe describe one piece of evidence that supports your assertions (e.g. that nitrogen can act as a signal without being metabolized). You also need to have in-line citations. Read through your sentences aloud and make sure they are clearly stating what you want to convey.

Jmmcabee (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee[reply]

Comments on Peer Review

Hi Anna, your paragraph overall is well written. I was a little confused at this sentence 'NRT1.1 (CHL1) is the nitrate transceptor (transporter and receptor) found on the plasma membrane of plants.' Are NRT1.1 and CHL1 the same thing? Perhaps you could write out what NRT1.1 and CHL1 stand for if they are different from each other. Other than that it looks great and is specific to nitrogen sensing and its mechanism. I've also checked your citations and they support your claim about nitrogen sensing. Husky212 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]