Wikipedia:Peer review/Ice-minus bacteria/archive1

I am looking for advice on how to make the article better.Amkered 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvoShandor

edit

At a glance:

  • Lose the list (convert to prose)
  • Add inline citations for anything likely to be challenged or otherwise in need of citation, assertions of fact, conclusions etc.
  • I really don't think the intro provides enough context, (I remember thinking that when I saw it on DYK too).
  • Expansion: So how does this all work? How does it "win out"?
    • Further, how does a farmer introduce it to their crop?
  • Wouldn't historical perspective be better as just "History"?
  • Talk about its use more. When? Where? How often? Why or why not?
  • When all is said and done lead should conform to WP:LEAD.
  • An actual image of the bacteria would be wonderful for the upper right hand corner of the page.
  • Watch for tense agreement as here: found that when this particular bacterium was introduced to plants where it is originally absent
  • Talk more about the differences between the minus and plus.
  • Are there any applicable WikiProjects? They might have guidelines regarding what to include and what not to.

Hope that helps. Happy editing and good luck with a most interesting entry. IvoShandor 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scientizzle

edit

I followed over from Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Help. Here's a few comments:

  • Inline citations = good thing. Wikipedia:Footnotes can help.
  • The opening is too jargon-y and doesn't indicate the underlying importance of the strain (that it provides some frost resistance). In fact, the clear link to frost resistance doesn't occur until the "Economic importance" section--far too late.
  • Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, so there's no need to explain the production of the strain.
  • Has it been used beyond any government field tests?
  • The gypsy moth stuff is too tangental. A link to introduced species or something would prove more effective. — Scientizzle 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]