User talk:Changla/sandbox

Nice analysis of the botany page. Jmmcabee (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

What specific changes might you make to the plant phys page to improve it? Jmmcabee (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Ideas Draft

I'm having trouble seeing your ideas. You had a suggestion for a change to the phytoremediation page. How did you identify that this needed to be expanded? Then it looks like you pasted in the article for endophytes? What are the specific changes you thought you could make on that article? It's helpful if you can do an evaluation of each page (like you did for botany and plant physiology articles last week), rather than just suggestions of what to change. Feel free to update. Jmmcabee (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee It looks like you have lots of ideas, especially for endophytes. Do you want to choose one of those two topics? They are both still available. As for citations in the endophyte article, it looks like some of the citations listed are not ideal. My understanding is that reviews are good because they cover a lot of information without the necessity of listing every primary source. However, I wouldn't think science direct is a great source. In addition to adding and rearranging materials, you could work on streamlining citations, as suggested by Wikipedia. Jmmcabee (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Article Revision

You have made a big improvement to the first paragraph. 100 references is definitely too many. You could look for reviews that cite several of the primary literature papers, to replace those citations. It is hard to identify other small changes you have made. You may need to highlight those for your peer reviewer. Jmmcabee (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on second draft

Can you cut and paste the parts you added into the second draft section, so it will be easier for your reviewer to evaluate what you've actually written. I think it is too much to ask a reviewer to evaluate your numerous edits (which are great, by the way).

Jmmcabee (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Peer review

Overall really great work. Nice job narrowing down the sources, that sounds like it took a pretty good chunk amount of time to get through. Your additions are great too. A few suggestions/thoughts: -last sentence of the intro paragraph sounds a bit awkward and could be reworded -i think you don't need to cite every sentence (something I was wondering about too) I think the way it is supposed to work is that you throw in a citation at the end of an idea, so every couple of sentences would be fine if you're talking about the same source -a few typos here and there: "Rhizobia can be considered endophytes as the establish and then live in the root nodules of legumes*. There they recieve carbon from the plant, and fix atmospheric nitrogen into a biologically available form that is uptaken by the plant." -something that is pretty much wrong in the article that you could edit if you wanted to: most bacterial endophytes are not intracellular, they are extracellular, they hang out in the apoplast of plants between the cells -industrial/environmental applications is missing some citations, just something I noticed not necessarily worth fixing, especially since you've put in so much effort already -it feels like the sources could still be narrowed down further, in my opinion, although it looks pretty good overall with the work you've already done -your plant host benefits paragraph is really good, great analysis/summary of the various benefits of endophytes as well as how these benefits change in different environments -I would take out "on the biotic side" it sounds a bit too informal -it seems like the last paragraph in that section could be taken out/integrated into the rest of the section, it sounds a bit redundant but that is just my opinion/a suggestion Pierrj (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Really great job on your article edit, there is a definite improvement from the original article to your final proposed product. Reading your improved version is very easy and fluent and the content makes a lot of sense. It is apparent that you spent a good amount of time revamping this entire article, and therefore I believe you have achieve your goal of making the article a better version. The only thing on the article that was distracting was the multiple citations given per sentence, as Pierre mentioned above I would also just cite the information once at the end if the info comes from the same source instead of at the end of every sentence. Finally, great job on reducing the amount of citations and leaving the ones with reliable reviews, if time permits I would revisit some of the suggestions Pierre made but I would not stress about it since you have done an overall great job. Ecoriam (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)