User talk:Dkodali/sandbox

Great work! Please check the excellent reviewer comments below. There are only four references and you need to have five. Also, please remove any opinions/subjective comments from the article and focus on the information in the articles. Nice job! --Amille75 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a) General Comments

i) The take home message of this article is that there are more forms of the chickpea that can be cultivated through domestication and improvement of the Cicer reticulatum. This crop is highly adaptable and can be molded for increased nutrition, texture, size, etc. Previous attempts have been unsuccessful due to its low genetic diversity. However, current attempts are aiming at introducing more genetic diversity in this crop through introgression.

ii) I really liked how this contribution gave a background to why this crop is important from the aspect of food production before diving into the specifics. It really set up the stage for the context in which all the following information should be interpreted. I disliked how there were a few technical terms in the article that were not explained. For example, “germplasm.” A suggestion I have is that in order to make the article more clear, you should define/explain these terms and how they affect the domestication/improvement of Cicer reticulatum

iii) The overall clarity of the article is great. However, I was confused at one part. Towards the end, you talked about high allelic variation and then later introduced low genetic diversity. I found this portion a bit confusing. I feel like your article could be strengthened by clarifying those two concepts, as they seem to be contradicting each other.

iV) While reading this article, here is a question that I have: Have there been any experiments done involving introgression to increase genetic diversity or is this idea still in the drawing board stages?

b)	Grammar

i) I do not see any spelling mistakes. I do not see any major grammar issues.

ii) The scientific names have the genus capitalized and the epithet with a lower case. However, the genus name and the epithet have not been and need to be underlined or italicized.

c) References

i) There are only 4 distinct references. Since this assignment requires 5, I would suggest incorporating another reference into your contribution.

ii) Yes, all the references are from a scientific journal.

iii) References 2,3, and 4 are cited correctly. The citation for reference 1 is correct except for the “Web of Science” part at the end. I think if you take out that part, all your citations for the references will be correct. Nedavall (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments (written by Nishita Kumar):

a) (1) The main argument is that due to limitations within the genetic diversity and distribution, Cicer reticulatum is a difficult species to grow under domestication. (2) One thing that I really liked about the article was the way it flowed. You transitioned very well from the general information in the beginning, to the more specific information at the end.

b) (1) I think that the overall grammar in your paper is good! However, one sentence that stood out to me was, "There have also been problems such as insects susceptible to breaking through the chickpea pods and limitations in increasing tolerance to abiotic stresses such as terminal drought and extreme temperatures." I think that this sentence could use more commas, and a bit more clarity in conveying what the problems are. (2) The capitalization of the scientific names are all written correctly, except that they also need to be italicized. (3) I think that the full scientific name of "C. echinospermum" is supposed to be used because that is the first time that you have referenced it in the paper.

c) (1) There are only four references, so I think one more needs to be added to it! (2) The issue number for each volume should be written in parentheses.

1. General Comments

The take home message of the article is that Cicer is a difficult genus to domesticate and breed due to various limitations such as disease susceptibility and a limited ability to adapt.
I appreciated how the content of the contribution was very clear and easy to follow.
As I was reading the article, I had no further questions as I think the author did a thorough job of introducing this new information.

2. Grammar

I found no spelling errors.
Perhaps consider splitting the second paragraph into 3 smaller paragraphs because it covers a lot of info. Maybe have the sentence “The wild progenitor of the chickpea (Cicer arietinum) is Cicer reticulatum.” be the beginning of a new paragraph as well as “Although there is promise for some kind of domestication process to allow for and create new sources of food through Cicer reticulatum”
All scientific names and abbreviations should be italicized, such as Cicer, Cicer arietinum, Cicer reticulatum, C. reticulatum, C. echinospermum

3. References

You are missing one reference, but the four that you do have are all from scientific journals!
You don’t need commas after the author’s last name and first initial, similarly, you do not need periods after the first initial. For example: “Peleg Z, Shabtay A, Abbo S (2015)”
The article titles should be italicized.
You don’t need to include from where the source was retrieved, such as in reference 1.
Your references are missing the issue number in parentheses after the volume.
Reference #4 does not have any page numbers.

In general I think you did an awesome job synthesizing your research and drafting a well written contribution to the current Wikipedia article. Well done!

--96.35.145.169 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)jesguerr[reply]