User talk:Medeangelis/sandbox

Peer Review

Lead: The lead section of the article is quite good and the edits made add a lot of new information that is vital to the understanding of Laminaria. With the life cycle section of the lead being so detailed and informative, I would almost work towards adding a little more to it and creating a whole new section in the body of the article. I think that would help to make the overall article more robust, since the lead is almost the same size as the rest of the article.I also think this section (Life-Cycle: The most common form of Laminaria is its sporophyte phase, a structure composed of the holdfast, the stipe, and the blades.) is grammatically awkward. It seems like the writer is trying to designate a new topic, but within the middle of a paragraph. This could be an easy fix with some grammatical changes.I also think that last sentence of the lead is a tad bit odd and could use a few more words to make it more readable.

History: I'm not sure what there is available in regards to information on the history of the algae, but any information you could find would be an easy update to the page.

Medical: Again this sections seems very solid, but if there is any additional information or sources available on the topic I would find those. It again is an easy and short section so any updates or additions would make a large change to the medical part.

Food: Basically I have the same thoughts as the previous two sections. If you can find more information that would be great, but if not the section is solid enough.

Farming Practices: I would definitely be more descriptive in this section. You describe the basics very well and without any bias, but more information would be greatly appreciated if a reader was looking for information on kelp farming. I found some new information on the process of kelp farming with a quick google search. As long as the source can be verified and valid, I would use it to boost this section up. I'm not sure you would be able to find much information in scholarly articles anyways on kelp farming.

References: The references section is filled up with great sources and I think the article overall is very well cited.

Final Thoughts: The article and edits made do a fantastic job of presenting varied information in an extremely unbiased manner. The edits made to the article boosted its overall value as an encyclopedia article with educational content. I would work on grammar and formatting the most though, especially with the lead. It just reads very odd to me and is not very smooth either. I think dividing it up will help quite a bit. I would also work on finding some additional information for the shorter sections if possible, but if not the sections already have some quality information in them.I would also try to link a few more words within the article to help the reader understand some of the more difficult concepts in the article. Overall, very solid edits with a lot of new and good content.

Abczuchra (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall the article has some good detail but could be much improved with the addition of more details. Also adding a section or two would help the flow of the article. Some sentences should be rewritten or broken up to again help the flow of the article. I think you are on the right track for really making this a good article. Good Luck!

Notes While Reading Through: I feel like the third sentence in the opening section would flow better split up into two. I like how you introduced the different names for Laminaria but I think there is a better so it flows a little more smoothly. This feels awkward can come across a little confusing "8 to 30 m (26 to 98 ft) (exceptionally to 120 m (390 ft) in the warmer waters of the Mediterranean Sea and off Brazil).[3]" Why was Fucus brought up? It is good for a comparison but if no knows what it is a little more background about how they relate would be good. Also only of the generations is explained not the other and I think the reproduction of this algae would work really well as its own section. This "Laminaria japonica (J. E. Areschoug – Japón) [6] is now regarded as a synonym of Saccharina japonica[7] and Laminaria saccharina is now classified as Saccharina latissima.[8]"seems out of place and disconnected from this opening section. I think you could add more detail to the medical section and it should not be presented as a list. The food section sentences could be reworded to sound better so they sound less confusing. I think more detail here would also help and the article ends very abruptly.

Kemurphy April 6th, 2017

Peer Review

-The second paragraph of the introductory paragraph uses too much technical language to be included without links to other wikipedia pages describing what those terms mean, your everyday person isn't necessarily going to know what a sporophytes or gametophytes etc. are.

-In the first paragraph of the history section, three of the five sentences begin with the word laminaria, and the word is said 2 more times in the paragraph. Finding ways to work the structure of the paragraph to need less direct mentioning of the word would be beneficial in giving the paragraph flow. -The medical section could use some detail as to how the plant is used. As of now it just says what the plant is used for not necessarily how. -The farming section could also use more content.

--Overall good, but some minor improvements could go a long way. Jmdriscoll (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Background section:

The sentence "At meiosis the male and female zoospores separate then come together after germinating into male and female gametophytes." is missing a comma after the word meiosis.

The line "Laminaria japonica (J. E. Areschoug – Japón) [6] is now regarded as a synonym of Saccharina japonica[7] and Laminaria saccharina is now classified as Saccharina latissima.[8]" is a bit abrupt.

History

The last sentence is not grammatically correct. You could change drop to dropped to fix this.

Farming Practices

This is really short.

Laminaria is not in italics but it is elsewhere.

Ecology

I think you meant to say "Preferring to stay".

Also you use the phrase "The due to the height of the laminaria".

The L in laminaria is not in italics but the rest is. This happens twice.

You say "Other organisms like as sea urchins feed on the holdfasts". Also there should be a comma after holdfasts.

In the last sentence the third and fourth comma should be removed.

Life cycle

There is an extra space after stipe but before the comma in the first sentence.

Medical

Only one of the three names of the carbohydrates is capitalized.

You misspell the world "field" as "feild".

Medical

This section seems a bit abrupt and does not flow well.

Metal Absorption

You misspelled the word "the"

No period at the end of the last sentence.

Good overall but there are a lot of typos. Hope this helps! Adam Weiss Ahweiss2 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)