User talk:Mmurph95/sandbox

Excellent contribution and great reviews. I concur with the reviewers below - minor edits but please revise accordingly. Let me know if you have any questions. Great work!--Amille75 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mary! Great job on your contribution. I have listed some comments below relating to your article:

(1)You did a good job of including several different types of Cicer species when you talked about domestication into modern cultivars.

(2)Your sources were all credible and varied in information.

(3)I enjoyed reading about the extensive research conducted on determining the genetic divergence between the different Cicer species.

(4) As I was reading the article, I was wondering about the segments where you mentioned Monocicer. Maybe I'm wrong, but would it have to be italicized because it is a subgenera? Ex.- https://books.google.com/books?id=kHpCfXYVXPsC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=monocicer&source=bl&ots=BlkTxZQQvt&sig=WYG5KrD5aQ6FBYbe_zAVlQi3sJc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwh8TX9KzJAhUDJCYKHXfuAsEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=monocicer&f=false

(5) Refer to this part of your contribution: "One particularly successful cross was between 'the annual C. cuneatum and perennial C. canariense' showed an F-1 generation that was 'partially fertile with intermediate morphology'".[5] The structure of the sentence seems a little odd. A suggestion I'd make would be to remove the "was" from the sentence.

Peer-review

1. You did an excellent job on Cicer. You incorporated many different species into your article and discussed the potential hybridization between the annual and perennial species. The information about the evolutionary relationship between different species is well presented.

2. One suggestion is about one study in the article. "the rapid species differentiation of Monocicer including adaptation to the disturbed environment". It would be more clear if you can give some examples about what those adaptations are. The readers will have a better understanding of the differences.

3. You mentioned several times about the future perennial crops. Maybe you can add some information about the benefits or advantages of the perennial plants to support the argument. Otherwise, I was a little bit confused why researchers are trying to cross the annual and perennial plants.

4. The overall grammar is good. One little thing, you wrote "the data indicates..." since data are pl., the verb needs to be pl. too. "the data indicate"

5. references: the title of the article does not need to be quoted. And I am not sure why at the end of each reference, it shows "Extra |pages= or |at= (help)". Did you add the final page number to the reference? The sources look fine.

Dwang24 (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review

Cicer peer review by Nishant Jain

General comments: Great Job! What is the main take home message of this article?

Cicer hybridization is promising option for domestication and expansion into perennial crops.

What do you like about this Wikipedia contribution? What do you dislike?

like:Good incorporation of intext citations.
dislike: Could be more organized. Try using headers to split up the article

Is there anything written that doesn’t make sense?

The multiple different species at times made it tough to follow. Maybe concentrate on one alternative species. Did not fully understand the study with the cross between C. cuneatum and perennial C. canariense.

What questions do you have as you are reading the text? Be specific.

What is the significance of C. incisum and C. canariense?

Grammar Do you see any spelling errors? Are there any periods or commas that are missing or out-of-place?

No need for comma after “Furthermore, the species crossed”

Are all scientific names written correctly, italicized with the genus name capitalized and the specific epithet starting with a lower case?

Yes

References Are there five distinct references?

Yes

Are each of the references from a scientific journal?

Yes

re the references cited correctly?

Yes