Wikipedia:Peer review/Thismia rodwayi/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished translating it from the French article (of which I'm the author), and I'd like some feedback, especially on style, grammar, etc.
Thanks a lot, Thouny(talk), on 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Sotakeit
[edit]- Overall a well written article. Generally it reads well, though there are a few things that just don't sound right to my ears that I would change. It's particularly well sourced for a subject which you say has very little literature and available data.
- Lead: The small number of known individuals of this species has put it under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Whilst this makes sense, I'm not sure how well it reads. May just be me, but I find it a little unidiomatic, especially suing the word 'individuals'. Perhaps something like: Due to its relative rarity, the species has been put under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995?
- As it does not contain any chlorophyll, its only vegetative parts are a flower stalk and roots, both devoid of chlorophyll. Using 'chlorophyll' twice in the sentence sounds a little clunky. Perhaps getting rid of the first clause all together ('As it does not contain any chlorophyll')?
- Its whole life cycle, and especially its reproductive one, is still mostly unknown need citing.
- Perhaps a link to leaf shapes where 'obovate' is mentioned here.
- Again in the description section, why is flower in quotes in the third sentence, but not in the second?
- Perhaps renaming the Autecology section to something like 'habitat'? I don't think 'Autecology' would be readily understood by most.
- Use of 'occurs' in the autecology section doesn't sound idiomatic. 'Grows', 'thrives' even?
- Because of the anecdotal occurrence data concerning this plant: I don't like this sentence. It doesn't read well at all. Unsure what to suggest as a revision as I'm not sure what it is meant to convey.
- Again, the use of 'cyrptic' here doesn't sound quite right. Sotakeit (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)