User talk:Amgehron19/Taxodium ascendens
Peer Review
edit1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
The article gives clear descriptions of the tree and all aspects of it- i.e. physiology, habitat, distribution, and specific conditions it requires. Each section of the article gives a bit more information from different aspects of the tree and niche information that might not be easy to come by.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
The main changes I would suggest are to give information in your own words instead of pulling much of the information from direct quotes. This could let you describe each aspect of the information the quote gives with more detail while still keeping the citation. Sections could also be in paragraph formats rather than many individual spaced out statements, but that is not holding the article back.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
Adding more information and giving more detail about different aspect of the article would be beneficial, as well as helping the word count. More references might give more information as well to elaborate further on aspects of the tree that have already been described. Expanding on the information from sources rather than putting them in isolation would help greatly.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
The "etymology" and "ecological benefits" sections are great ideas that might be beneficial to my own article. Those sections definitely serve to show more than just what the tree is and what it looks like.
5. Copy and paste the article including references into Word and determine the number of words in the article, do they meet the criteria (at least 1200words).
675 total words; does not meet the criteria. Slezkin (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)