User talk:Jesguerr/sandbox

A. General Comments 1. I liked that you had distinct sections for each different topic you wanted to talk about regarding this plant. It feels as though you understood how to apply each different article you had. 2. I did not understand the point of the bluebunch wheatgrass sentence in the description section. As earlier it was not mentioned if P. spicata is a form of this grass. Perhaps clarify this statement.

B. Grammar The species was italicized properly throughout. The grammar was correct throughout as well.

C. References There are 5 distinct referncees and are cited properly at the bottom of the page. There are also intext citations that refer to the larger citation at the bottom, which is done properly.

D. Overall it looks like you were able to properly integrate all of your sources and then go on to split up your contribution into distinct segments. I would suggest that in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Description section to move some of the commentary regarding the elongation of roots and nutrient uptake to the growth and development section. It seems to make more sense in that part than in the description part.

--Premaldesai05 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Premal Desai[reply]

A. I also thought that your organization of information was incredibly well done for this assignment.

 1.) I also agree that some of the information in the Description and Growth/Development could be integrated together. But perhaps an easier way would be to remove the Growth/Development section and just include this information in the descriptive as it is unlikely this would end up being a very lengthy page.
 2.) All of the information showed relevance to the idea of potential perennial crops and seems to highlight why each trait is important.
 3.) I had a little bit of difficulty understanding the what constitutes a plant of the same population vs. a different population in the second paragraph on root development. Does a different population mean a different species of plant or simply a different variety of the same species?

B. All grammar and italicizing appeared very well done.

C. All sources appear to be chosen well and peer reviewed.

 1.) Some periods are missing after initials of authors first and middle initials in the references.
 2.) A period is missing following each year in the references.
 3.) I believe the volume number needs to be italicized as well following the journal title.

Overall very well done! Besides the minor formatting it looks like you had good information that was combined together very concisely!

Bradvost (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments:

I enjoyed reading the article, it is well written
The subcategories of text are useful for enunciating differences in the information
Pseudoregneria is slightly random at times in the context of the paragraphs

Grammar:

Overall, the grammar is fine and flows well
Sentence structure could use some variation, and some sentences have the ability to be combined using commas
When referencing specific information, it would be helpful to highlight the specifics by bolding or italicizing

References:

5 references are seen
The references are from accredited sources
References are cited correctly
Overall, well done with this article

--Sgorukan (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)sgorukan[reply]