User talk:Zakharya/sandbox

Great work! I agree with the comments below and would only add that you don't need to add a reference to the citation list each time you cite it in the article. You only need to add it once, and then refer to that same number throughout the article. Hope this makes sense - let me know if you have any questions. --Amille75 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would change all of the "degree Celsius" in your paper to "°C." I personally think that everything would just be easier to follow that way.
You say that the "effects of salt and pH were studied" and then in the next paragraph you say again that the "effects of pH and salt were observed." The way you have it now is just a little redundant.
I would explain what you mean by the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph
The paragraphs do not seem to follow as well as they could.
You already have that temperature effects germination in the first paragraph and then you say it again in the 5th paragraph. I would try to move some things around so they are together.

Jkunst1 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Kenn.

A) I truly enjoyed reading your addition to Wikipedia. I thought that your topic was interesting and significant to our class. You explained in detail the results of multiple experiments regarding the effects light and temperature on germination. You have also noted pH affects and effects of other compounds as well. Furthermore, I thought the effects of dry storage were very interesting. You did a good job explaining the basics of each of these experiments. One question that I have is how this would benefit humans and how this could be something that we could potentially eat.

B) This piece was well written and there were very little grammar errors. One thing I wanted to point out is this sentence: "The effects were showed statistical significance but leave...". "were showed" is supposed to be "were shown," I believe. Other than that, the piece was well organized and structured. Another suggestion may be to put headers on these specific paragraphs to give the reader a better understanding on the overall basis of each subtopic.

C) You have more than 5 cited sources and it looks like you have cited them properly. I do not have any additional criticism for your piece. Well done! Kvattath (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)kvattath[reply]

Leymus chinensis: Peer Review by Milan Patel: What is the main take home message of this article? The main take home message is that Leymus chinensis in dry shortage, survives better in 20 degrees Celsius compared to 5 degrees. What do you like about this Wikipedia contribution? What do you dislike? I liked that there was a lot of experimental data given. I disliked that it was not organized as well as it could have been. Is there anything written that doesn’t make sense? Everything made sense and was cited. What questions do you have as you are reading the text? Be specific. What is the average height of Leymus chinensis? Where does it optimally grow? Grammar Do you see any spelling errors? Are there any periods or commas that are missing or out-of-place? Grammar is very good and there are not any spelling errors. Are all scientific names written correctly, italicized with the genus name capitalized and the specific epithet starting with a lower case? Yes they are References Are there five distinct references? Yes there are Are each of the references from a scientific journal? Yes they are Are the references cited correctly? Yes they are