User talk:Ogwu94/Soil regeneration

Article Review

There are several things I liked and disliked about the article currently. A major thing I noticed is that there is only one picture. I like the picture and feel that it is informative, but I think the quality of the article would be improved if additional pictures were added. Another major thing is that the article is rather short at the moment. I noticed there are several bolded ideas at the bottom, and I believe once those ideas are fleshed out the article will be a good length and the size won't be an issue. The third major comment I have is that the article is very informative and that is very good. It seems dense with information but is still easy to read. A small issue I had was the part where George Furey is mentioned by name. I believe it would be better if his name is taken out and perhaps it could be changed to just say "results from works". Another small issue I had was with the capitalization of paragraph titles. Personally, I think they would look better capitalized but it isn't a major problem. My final small comment is that I think the paragraph on soil regeneration practices was explained very well. Ttbioclass (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been able to include more content to other parts of the outline and also included more pictures. Goerge Furey's name has been removed and replaced with appropriate sentence. The paragraph titles are now capitalized. Thank you for the review. Ogwu94 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Nia's Article Review

First and foremost I want to apologize, I thought that we were directly editing the article for our commentary/peer-reviews, and I accidentally changed the second sentence. So I am sorry for changing the second sentence. I liked the overall structure of the article, and the fact that you included images in some of the sections. I feel like the images were helpful to assist with explaining some of the major concepts. I also liked how you defined soil regeneration firstly and I feel like that is a great way to begin the article in terms of order. One of my suggested edits was to change the wording of the first sentence(which I already did, and hopefully you remember how it was worded before and can change it back somehow). I would also suggest removing some unnecessary wording that is included throughout the article as well. Overall the structure of the article is good. I would only suggest that the article be less wordy, and that you simplify it section by section to explain the main points simply. Also the way that some of the sentences are structured is a little confusing so I would go back and make changes to some of them to make them easier to read/understand(I still got the gist of what you were saying it was just a few sentences that read weird out-loud). Another thing that might be helpful is to add a picture/example of what the process of soil regeneration looks like. Overall I think that you did a great job! and included lots of details.

=the====end

Response: Thank you for the review. I have changed the first sentence. I have also reduced wording of article as suggested, while also retaining important information from different sources, which serves as evidence to support the main goal/idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogwu94 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Danielle's Review

Small edits:

Under "types of soil regeneration practices" you need a space between the words crop rotation and compost making. You might want to highlight and link AMP to a definition of sorts. The following sentence should say "other methods include" (remove the s in includes) and I think it should be : instead of ; as it is a list following and not another full sentence. The second sentence under "regenerative agriculture" should say "reducing carbon emissions" rather than "reduces." I would suggest rewording the last part of this sentence - "Soil interventions, such as mechanical soil disturbance, are minimized to an absolute minimum or avoided[20]." The comma needs to be removed from the end of the second sentence under "green manuring"

Overall - fantastic article!! I think it is in a really good state as is. In light of what Kasey mentioned, I think my only big suggestion would be to try and condense a couple sections to maintain the reader's attention but still list most of the information you have. It's tough because I really like all the sections you have, but maybe there is room to cut/condense a little bit in the conservation agriculture section? I think it would be nice to point out the differences between conservation ag and regenerative ag, so maybe in your CA section you could only discuss how it is different from Regenerative ag and not have to explain all the ways it is similar. The other section that could possibly be condensed is the microbiota section. I think what you have is great, but since there is a page on microbiota, maybe you could link to it instead of having to go into as much detail. Honestly I love everything you have written, so I don't think much should come out but maybe there is a way to say what you currently have in a more concise manner. 2600:6C40:58F0:88A0:E415:2FA:2713:5FDB (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this well-detailed review.

I have corrected the typographical errors that were highlighted and rephrased the sentences.

I have also condensed the article by cutting out some sentences in the conservation agriculture, use of biota, and regenerative agriculture sections, while ensuring that sections retained their key information. Ogwu94 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)