User talk:Dwang24/sandbox

Well done - I second reviewer comments. Great work everyone!--Amille75 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

1. General comments: i. Great work on this article! I like how you focus on how this plant may be used to restore native perennial grasslands. This article was also structured well because you began with general genetic information about the plant, its antimicrobial activity, and then focused effects of natural selection. ii. I particularly like the section about natural selection and salinity. You explained everything well and how salinity affects seedling lengths. iii. I believe that the first paragraph was a little confusing. I think you can split the sentences beginning with “It was hypothesized…”. You can have the separation because another sentence can discuss chromosome duplication. iv. Do you also need a citation at the end of paragraph 2 after citation #3? It seems like it is specific information from an article. v. Do you also need to put a citation at the end of paragraph 4 (for the same reasons)? I would put a citation here even if the same source is used for the first couple sentences in paragraph 5. Helps the reader understand the context for your statements. 2. Grammar i. Your grammar overall was great. You are missing a period in the last sentence of the first paragraph that begins with “Polyploidization…”. ii. Do you need to italicize “sep” in the first paragraph? I’m not sure if you need to. 3. References i. Good work with references.

Bgupta1 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

A. General Comments: (overall best article of those I read) i. Gives an overview of Hordeum brachyantherum and explains some specific features of the plant including antimicrobial activity, polypoidy events, saline tolerance, and its restorative value in ecosystems. ii. Overall, this article is great. The specific sections each give a very important and relevant trait of the species. I think titling each section and splitting them into subsections will make the article look more professional and will highlight and clarify the awesome work you did. I also think you could definitely strengthen your first section by mentioning the general things about ploidy and what polyploidization is and what that means at the beginning rather than the end. Explainign the general, before diving into the specifics will help clarify what the importance of those specifics are. iii. The only things that do not make sense seem to be a matter of my ignorance. This article is very scientific, which is great, but there is also a lot of jargon. I might suggest linking some of your key terms to other articles like this. That would allow you to basically define those terms without taking up huge amounts of space in your article. iv. One question I had while reading was about what kind of growing conditions the plant grows best in. You have a section on saline resistance, but I think a section on overall growing conditions would be useful considering the context of our assignment.

B. Grammar i. I think this needs to be revised, "involves in grain hardness". Maybe take out "in"? ii. Scientific names look good.

C. References (great work on these here!) i. Includes 5 references. ii. All from reputable journals from what I can tell. iii. Format looks perfect, except the example does not use italics. Sream1 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great job on your contribution! Here are some additional comments:

1. You did a good job of using a variety of sources and properly citing them.

2. One suggestion I have would be to start off with a more introductory paragraph. Most wikipedia pages start off with some background information on the topic. I think you could improve this article by doing the same and providing some information on your taxon and what you plan to address in your article before moving on to polyploidization and agricultural developments.

3. I think you could clarify the first sentence of the second paragraph. It was a bit unclear to me what you were trying to say.

4. You did a great job of connecting how the different topics you address can improve genetic variation and be used for crop improvement.

5. I also thought you did a good job of explaining the information you found in your sources. Your article was easy to follow and understand.

Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuriansr (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)