User talk:Lex T-Rex/sandbox

The lead section was not edited yet and can be improved. There is an obvious spot for improvement where it is written [clarification needed]. The intro sentence is clear and accurate. The intro should include a summary of the points added by Lex T-Rex to set a POA of the major points in the article.

The article is clearly organized with the headers, but the name of the section “Causes” could be made more parallel to the other headings by making it longer like “Causes of plant blindness” or something. The information is relevant and cited well. The article is mostly balanced and unbiased. The “Controversy around the term” section could be expanded to more than one sentence to give more information.

Five references are used repeatedly which I believe is okay. Whenever information is stated the citation is provided. Links are also used frequently for terms that other users might want to have available.

Overall, this article is well written. The intro should be edited to include the information added by Lex T-Rex as a summary and to provide context. Some sections could be expanded to imitate “Good” or better rated Wiki articles. If Lex T-Rex really wants to make the article look higher rated, maybe a photo of plants could be added or subsections to organize even more. For example, two causes are mentioned so to make them obvious from a glance they could be made into subsections. Also, is a problem of plant blindness maybe how humans can be destructive to nature/plants? Only funding is discussed. OctopusLoveHats (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Adele Andrews Peer Review

Hello!

The subject is a pretty interesting idea, but I think the article generally had a pre-existing bias problem. Some of this was fixed by a recent edit on the page and I think that can be used as an example in what you added. A lot of the comments on the page discussed that the claim it is a more informally proposed cognitive biased and nature deficit disorder is contentious, so I would be really careful on the phrasing of things considering that the whole concept is being debated (which it looked like one of your sources also shows).

Possible ways to decrease bias: -Including more explicit and prominently placed information on what is up for debate (the whole concept which is included at the very end, nature vs culture) -being explicit about if information or proposed solutions are coming from a specific study or source if its not broader -just softening the language(____ is thought to, potentially linked to)

The structure generally looks good. The main thing I would add is I think human nature and culture in the causes section can be under two different headlines. Additionally changing problems of plant blindness to effects of plant blindness or even potential/proposed effects of plant blindness might help with the bias.

There were two points I was a bit confused by which I think should either be expanded on or removed. The sentence on animals being "over-represented" specifically in mascots I think could be controversial or confusing to some people and might need justification/context (i think a plant mascot would be neat though). Additionally, the statement that plants are revered in India seems like a possible over-generalization and could be removed or replaced with a more specific example should be given.

Looking forward to seeing the finished article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PossumPerson (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)