User talk:Jkunst1/sandbox

Looks good - please check reviewer comments below and revise as suggested. Also please keep subjective comments out of the wikipedia entry. This should just summarize results found in the citations. --Amille75 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This contribution has excellent nutritional information to add to the Wikipedia page! Your additions are interesting and seem useful for utilizing Digitaria exilis as a source of food.

There are just a few grammatical and syntactical errors that could be corrected to make your contribution easier to understand. For instance:

"Digitaria exilis has a high nutritional value to humans" is little bit awkwardly phrased.
In your second to last sentence in your first paragraph, you don't need the comma after "Also".
The last sentence of your first paragraph is phrased awkwardly and "fantastic" is not really an objective or scientific word. You might instead write that: "The combination of nutritional values, physicochemical properties, and taste demonstrates that Digitaria exilis has the potential to be used in many foods."
You use the word "also" frequently in your writing. You might swap them out for other words like "additionally" or cutting them out if they're unnecessary.
In the second sentence of your second paragraph, "affect" should be "effect". "Affect" is a verb, and "effect" is a noun.
"The mechanical methods are things like dehusking and milling. The thermal methods are things like precooking, parboiling, and roasting." In this section "things" could be more specific ("processes" or "techniques"?).
"Digitaria exilis" should be italicized.

As I was reading your contribution, I was wondering why exactly the processing methods are difficult to perform (Are they expensive or are they time consuming?). I'd also like to know what effects the processing methods have on the grain (Do they lower the nutritional value?).

The article that is included is correctly cited, but the other four articles seem to be missing?

This looks good so far! You just need to work on some small issues to have this all ready to go. (I'm an English major so if you need any help with the grammar feel free to message me!) - Shannon Cheng

1. General comments

• The main idea of this submission seems to be that Digitaria exilis is a plant that has high nutritional value to humans, but through processing and cooking, the nutritional value decreases. • I like that the ideas are clearly stated and easy to understand. • There is nothing written that does not make sense. Every sentence has a specific meaning and purpose, which is great! • When you say that Digitaria exilis has much better physicochemical properties, what do you mean by “better”? What are you comparing this to? • Also, how can you tell that it has one of the best tasting cereal grains? The way in which you’ve framed the sentence makes it seem as though taste, in this context, is a matter of opinion and not of fact, so be careful to explain what you mean here.

2. Grammar

• The grammar is generally good, and there are no spelling errors that I came across. The sentences are relatively simple, so maybe adding some complex sentences and combining different ideas could help make your article sound a little better overall. In addition, you use the word “also” several times in the first paragraph. You could do without these transitions altogether, or you could substitute them with a different word. • Just remember for the final submission, the name of the species needs to be italicized.

3. References • There is only one source which you’ve listed, so you still need to add four more sources to the submission. • The source that you have listed is from a reputable scientific journal and is properly cited.

This was overall a really simple and straight-to -the-point article. This was wonderful in that aspect. There are just a few things that need some looking in to, otherwise you are on track and this looks great!

~Divya Kodali