User talk:LovelyLiatris
| This user is a student editor in Catawba_College/BIOL_3575_Plant_Taxonomy_-_2024_(Fall_2024) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, LovelyLiatris, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Peer Review 11/1/24
[edit]Hey hey! Leaving you your peer review for Euphorbia maculata. 1) The article was really effective in communicating core details about the plant, including a decent bit of habitat. You have gathered a lot of info and seem to have a good deal to work with. Descriptions are mostly neutral.
2- 2a) Some sections often repeat each other or overexplain I noticed. Examples include, from the "Uses" section: "Eurphorbia maculata of the Euphorbiaceae family..." as an example of something that could probably be shortened. There are a few other particularly wordy sentences but I get the need to try to hit the word count. 2b) On the other hand, some things feel a little more instructional versus neutral, like in the management section especially. 2c) It may be a good idea to shorten Euphorbia maculata to E. maculata after its been mentioned once in a paragraph-- that'd keep your word count the same while making it easier to read.
3) I'd work on neutrality and making sentences more concise. Also, you could probably flesh out the toxicity and the weed sections by talking about the specific chemicals that are in its toxin and best effective for killing the plant.
4) One thing you do well that I also need to do is explaining the habitat better. You gave a wide range of habitat descriptions, which is really effective.
Overall, good job! This was a well written and info-dense article. -- Eebeesus (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC) (Elias)
- Forgot to mention-- I think the common names you have for this plant can all go in one long list at the beginning of the lead, rather than at the end of the lead (take R. multiflora's page for example).
- Also, you mention scientific name synonyms and taxonomic classification information at the end of the lead and in "Taxonomy" respectively-- these two things have designated tables for them within the source code. I'm not 100% sure on how to edit those but they're in the main big box you see under the lead (on mobile) or to the right of the lead (desktop). You'll see a spot for "Scientific Classification" and "Synonyms" (of the binomial name sort) there.
- As for the reclassification of Chamaesyce to the current Euphorbia, is there any expansion to be done on why this clarification happened? (There may not be but it would add to the word count).
- Happy editing! Eebeesus (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)