User talk:Lnisbet10/sandbox

Mallory Brown: peer review

A lead section that is easy to understand

I think that the lead alone is a very good summary of the article that hits the important points, but after reading the entire article I think that you could perhaps mention some of the uses of GLVs that you later talk about like signaling and antimicrobial agents. I think you did a good job of giving equal weights to the sections in your lead and it does not seem at all redundant, though if you add the info on the uses of the GLVs into the lead you will need to be careful to not make that sound redundant.

Thank you for the feed back this is a very good point I will make sure to add uses of GLVs to the lead.

A clear structure

I think the sections are organized in the best way possible and I wouldn't make any changes! I feel as though I need to make the different sections even more clear.

Balanced coverage

I think each section has a good length that corresponds to its importance except the last section is on the short side and it feels important, though that may be all the info you could find on that subject since results seemed inconclusive. All sections of the article need to be there I feel and the only thing that could be misconstrued as off topic is the info about the wasps, but I think that provides a good example and needs to be in the article. I can't imagine that any perspectives are missing and the info is not of the type anyone could really argue much about. I do not think the article draws any conclusions except for those that are concluded from experiments, which is relevant and fine to do

Thank you for the feedback, I will add more information on the research done on the topic.

Neutral content

I could not guess the perspective af the author while reading the article and did not notice any generalizations or expressions that don't feel neutral. The article does use an unnamed group of researchers in the third section, but in the context this claim is made I think it is fine. The article seems to focus on the positive aspects of GLVs, but maybe there is no research on the negative aspects (if there even are any negative aspects).

I had not caught this, I will make sure to cite my research more clearly. In my research I did not find any negative aspects of GLVs, but their purpose is still being determined so researchers may be focusing on the positives of them.

Reliable sources

There seems to be enough reliable sources, but I am unsure right now if every statement of fact is attributed to one as the article is not completely cited, the beginning is okay but probably needs a couple more and the end needs more citations. Thank you, I do need to add citations.

Matthew Walker: Peer Review A lead section that is easy to understand

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
1. The lead is very direct with explaning exactly what Green Leaf Volatiles are and its gives basic information about what they are.
Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
1. The lead does do some part of explaning the rest of the article, but I think maybe more could be written about possibly specific GLVs and if they differentiate themselves. Are certain GLVs released during certain attacks which helps differentiate the response that occurs.
Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others?
1. The lead is extremely neutral and gives an extremely broad statement about the rest of the article which I think is very good.
Is anything missing?
1. The intext citations, some spelling and grammar errors (missed spaces and periods), and a clear definition of where the lead ends and the rest of the article begins.
Is anything redundant?
1. I feel like mentioning pheramones, then mentioning the processes of how the pheramones work in a different paragraph is not the best.

Thank you for the feedback, upon rereading the article I agree that those sections do need to be added to the lead.

A clear structure

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order?
1. There aren't really clear designation for where material goes, it is sort of just listed as material.
Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
1. Maybe separate different ideas from each other, like the part regarding antimicrobial/fungal compounds and bacterial/viral relationships from the basic summary of GLVs.

I agree with this feedback I do need to add separate sections.

Balanced Coverage

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?
1. I think more information on the evolutionary arms race would be a plus as we were pushed towards stubs with evolutionary bases.
Are there sections in the articcle that seem unnecessary?
1. There aren't any sections in the article, nothing is divided up.
Is anything off-topic?
1. Everything is on topic.
Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?
1. I think if any other material out there is about the antimicrobial/fungal activities, that would help support the hypothesis that GLVs are used to protect the plant from infection.
Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
1. The evolutionary race viewpoint seems small, even though
Does the article draw conlcusions or try to convince the read to accept one particular point of view?
1. The article does draw a stark conclusion with saying that this "proves" that plants can distinguish GLVs. (end of large paragraph)

Thank you for this feedback, I do feel that I should add more info on the microbial properties. However where you mentioned the evolutionary arms race there was not much more information on that, the functions of GLVs are still being discovered. Also the feedback on the conclusion of my paper was helpful I did not realize I was making such a drastic conclusion.

Neutral Content

Do you thing you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
1. I feel as though it is neutrally written, bacteria and virus using the GLVs for themselves seems a little underdone and maybe a lesser hypothesis.
Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea, most people" or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
1. There aren't any words that stand out as biased or not neutral.
Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
1. There are some statements in the large paragraph where the author says "researchers say" without having a source at the end of sentence identifying who the researchers are.
Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information?
1. There isn't really any information that can be taken as either negative or positive in one direction.

This is a good point that I need to cite the researchers used.

Reliable Sources

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
1. The "the researchers" statements definitely need an intext citation at the end of each sentence, no matter how redundant.
Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it many lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
1. Do not know, as citations cannot be matched up with the cited material.
Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references?
1. I don't know if there was just an error making the article, but only 2 of articles are cited intext in the article.

My in text citations do need to be edited.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.29.188.229 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]