User talk:Jasonfaghih/sandbox

Nice evaluation- if you could change something, what would you change? Jmmcabee (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Ideas Draft

Evaluate each article as you did for the botany and plant phys articles. Are you suggesting adding a section on chemoreceptors in insects or nematodes that respond to plants? It was unclear from your proposed sentence how plants are involved in this process. Similarly for buzz pollination, your proposed sentence wasn't quite clear. Are you saying insects avoid plants that don't do buzz pollination? There must be a little more to this. Your citations don't seem complete. Jmmcabee (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

I still have the concern that the example you are referring to has little to do with plants. It seems like it is an example of a chemoreceptor detecting a plant chemical. However, this article looks like it could use a lot of work to be more complete. I see little if any reference to chemoreceptors in non-animals. Seems like a huge gap from my understanding of the term. Jmmcabee (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on Article Revision

Your suggested added text looks good. Make sure that all terms are well-explained but also precise. Make sure you are clear in your second paragraph on the difference between between chemoreceptor signaling that induces hormones and hormone chemoreceptors themselves. Are you planning to add a new section to this page for plant chemoreceptors. Is that what you'd call it? Make sure you know how to add the new section. Jmmcabee (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Comments on second draft

Looks ready for peer-review and well-organized. Add a new section, so you can have a table of contents.

Jmmcabee (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)jmmcabee

Peer edit (Felipe Rodriguez)

All the science stuff seems good (except you could use another source or two?), the sentence structures just seem a bit off. for example: "Plants have various mechanisms in which they perceive danger in their environment" could be changed to "Plants have various mechanisms to perceive danger in their environment."

"They are able to detect pathogen and microbe related risk stimuli through surface level receptor kinases (PRK)" could be changed to "Plants are able to detect pathogens and microbes through surface level receptor kinases (PRK)"

"Additionally, receptor-like proteins (RLP's) containing ligand binding receptor domains capture pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPS) and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPS) which consequently renders the plants innate immunity for a defense response. " I'm not really sure what is being said here, you're missing some of the sentence structure. I think you mean "Additionally, receptor-like proteins (RLP's) containing ligand binding receptor domains that recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPS) and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPS)." what is meant by this part? which consequently renders the plants innate immunity for a defense response Please clarify/rewrite.

go back and read your last paragraph outloud to someone who hasn't heard it yet. It will help with structuring these sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frod6580 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello,

Your citation links appear to be working fine. If possible, see if there are any citations more recent for protein kinase signaling, and other older citations. I believe that you are using highly scientific vocabulary when explaining the different receptors, and proteins. It would be beneficial to the reader to have a link to these vocab words, or to define the words yourself. Furthermore, your last sentence, "There are 5 major categories of hormones that are unique to plants which once bound to the receptor, will trigger a response in target cells." could use some grammar editing, and could also do some good with further extrapolation on these five major categories. I personally believe that the phrase "five major categories" is really vague when left alone. A possible explanation on why this is important to the plants' function can help improve the quality of your article. Lastly the sentence, "These hormone receptors can either be integrated in plant cells, or situate outside the cell." is really vague and requires further detail explaining how the different locations could result in a change of function, or perhaps lack of function. Joshahn419 (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Very well done, overall. Great job providing an appropriately broad synthesis of a complex idea. Your article addition is highly technical -- but that might very well be a consequence of the complex topic at hand. Nevertheless, a couple of improvements could be made to remedy this. First, you might want to consider breaking up the first sentence with a few, less technical, explanatory sentences to buffer the transition from one mechanism to the next, keeping the reader oriented. Second (I guess this one is really an extension of the first), I might help to include an example (of, for instance, what kind of outward responses these pathways induce that demonstrate response to danger). Likewise, it might help to briefly discuss the "other important biological processes" mentioned in your second paragraph. As was noted above, links to the terminology could be helpful to the reader, but it is also worth noting that you did a great job properly introducing the terms and their related acronyms. Ending with a minor punctuation edit: a comma should be added between "which" and "once" in the final sentence. Walkerka (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)