Wikipedia:Peer review/Plant disease resistance/archive1

Plant disease resistance

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor. I am not looking for edits on the "Plant breeding for disease resistance section" down to the "Epidemics and population biology" section because these areas were not part of my contribution and are outside of the scope of this assignment.

Thanks, MChapman5 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Biosthmors

First of all, thanks for your contributions! I will look for things that can be improved about the article.

Thank you for your time.

The WP:First sentence should define the subject, but right now we have "is crucial to the reliable production of food, and it provides significant reductions in agricultural use of land, water, fuel and other inputs." This describes the subject's importance, but it does not define the subject. (As a reader of Wikipedia, at this point I am left wondering what the article will be about.) Improve?

Done.

I don't think the plant cell picture in the WP:Lead helps readers understand anything. I recommend removing it or placing it in a relevant section with a caption that helps readers, if such a section exists.

I agree. It has been removed.

Per the bullet points in WP:Headings, the subject heading of Common mechanisms of plant disease resistance[1][2] should neither repeat the subject (remove "plant disease resistance", as it is implied) nor cite references. Citations belong behind the facts they support.

Corrected.

- Might the section itself be better presented as WP:Prose instead of a list?

I agree prose could be better. I did not contribute this section to the wikipedia article, but I am willing to try and work on it in the future if time permits.

I hope you find these comments helpful, and I hope to be back to make further comments. Biosthmors (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prose "pre-formed defenses such as PAMP-Triggered Immunity (PTI; also known as MAMP-triggered immunity or MTI) and Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI) and from infection-induced responses mediated by the plant immune system" in the lead seems to be too technical. And I don't think effector triggered immunity should be capitalized as it shouldn't be considered a proper noun. In general, the WP:Lead should only summarize points made in the article and not state anything not stated again. Also, this sentence seems like it is too specific and detailed to be accessibly written for the lead. The lead should be easier to get through for lay-readers. Technical detail belongs more in the body of the article. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the lead section. Thanks for help! MChapman5 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]