User talk:Daniel Seo94/sandbox

Peer Review[edit]

Your addition has a lot of good information and facts. Jessie did say we need to have citations for each sentence, so make sure you add that. What section would this go under on the page? It seems like it would be more of an introductory paragraph. One revision I would make is changing, "how much nutrients it requires" to "the amount of nutrients it requires," or something along those lines. The "how much" part doesn't sound as grammatically correct. You have also done a really good job with writing neutrally. Overall, just make sure this information isn't too redundant to what is already on the page and cite your facts. Good job! Annaliddane (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Anna Liddane[reply]

Peer Review Peer Review

I really like how well your article flows. It is very clear and straightforward with neutral tone. Are you planning on including a title for the second draft? Also I think that it was a great idea to include various examples of seed dispersal along with a subsection on mechanism. I think that the first paragraph provides the reader with a clear summary and understanding of a parasitic plant. I think you also have sufficient amount of sources that are reliable. Something that I think could be useful is to possibly making the title subsections more descriptive rather than then simply "mechanism". Also possibly defining some key terms that may not be familiar to a non-expert. Overall, I think that you are doing a great job, and on the right track!

65.121.188.150 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Jason Faghih — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.174.11 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to evaluation[edit]

Did you look at both articles to contrast them? Your evaluation is on the talk page of your sandbox. For future assignments, use the sandbox itself! Jmmcabee (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee[reply]

Comments on Ideas Draft[edit]

Thanks for doing the additional analysis. You should really evaluate two articles, not just one. In terms of relevant links, look at the training module on how to cite your sources. Also, brainpop.com might not be the best source of information for Wikipedia since its information is probably roughly equivalent to Wikipedia. Did you see a gap in content on this page that you could work on? Jmmcabee (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee[reply]

Comments on First Draft[edit]

You have some great ideas. Make sure you are not biting off too much. You need to get some text (paragraphs) written that will be added to the article ASAP, so someone can peer-review. You need to have in-line citations and make sure your references are in the right format. There is a citation tool to use. Jmmcabee (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee[reply]