User talk:Fcimei

Hi Fiona,

you wrote quite a lot about the andean bean and you placed good wikipedia-links, nice. But for me it could be more compact.

I want to give you some general remarks first:

The latin name of the crop should always been written in italic. The first time you mention it you give the full name, For the following time write it like P.aphia. If you write down the english name use Andean bean. I would also add a systematic table (take the one of the genus and add a row for your species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyrhizus). The references should be in the text. Therefore you can use the wikipedia command: ^[1]. If you use the same reference for a second/third time you can use: ^[1]

History:

For me the last two sentences are misplaced. I would put them into agronomy or use section

Biology:

generally: Avoid here any information about cultivation or use (e.g. first sentence). These information should be in the agronomy section.

I would place the last sentence to the begin of the section because it is a more general/ecosystem-level information.

The rest of this part is very nice. I like how you proceed "top-down".

Agricultural aspects:

I was a kittle bit lost in this part. There is a lot of information but I can't see really an order or structure: So I would suggest to make subchapters like: growing conditions (soil and climate), pest/weed/disease-ctrl., cultivation/harvest/storage, use.

Attention with the term monoculture. This means (also in the wikipedia definition of the term) that a crop is grown over a long period of time on the same field. I'm not sure if this is the practice with the Andean bean (you are the expert:)). I would check this and ev. replace it by "pure culture".

Nutritional Aspects:

very nice!!!

Breeding (just if you find information):

is P.aphia an outcrosser or inbreeder? Self compatibility?

have a nice weekend, cu soon Tinocolombi (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, good job, you definitely have invested a lot of time in this article!

Tino gave you a good feedback already. I agree with him on most of his remarks, however, I‘ll give you a few additional ones.

General: Try to write your article in the „common wikipedia style“. Put your summary to the top (leave the title „Pachyrhizus Ahipa“) and use always the english term („Andean bean“) in the text. Further, I would write a sentence about the etymology of the scientific term. Your version with the brackets looks a bit unprofessional to me. Tino already mentioned the missing references in the text. I think you should pay more attention to the commas in your text. I point out the confusing comma mistakes only in the rest of my feedback. You have a good few dead links (red) in your article, I would remove or correct them. Please don‘t use the word „Anyway“ that much, it‘s a colloquially term, I think.

History: You wrote „acquisition of Latin America by the Spanish and Portuguese conquest, which had the general policy to destroy the traditional Andean agricultural systems.“ I wouldn‘t write something like this in an article about a plant. You could write it a bit smoother like: „During the Spanish and Portuguese conquest, the know-how about the traditional Andean agricultural systems was lost.“ In the last sentence of this section you write „There is absolutely no international trade...“ I would leave the word „absolutely“, it just makes a bit a lurid impression to me.

Biology: You claim: „The sometimes dwarf like habit makes P. Ahipa well suited for large-scale commercial cultivation“. I don‘t think this part of the plant morphology is sufficient to make a plant suitable for what you call large-scale commercial cultivation. There are a lot of aspects (like the reproductive pruning or the climate requirements) that make it at least difficult to introduce this plant in large-scale commercial cultivation.

In the sentence „P. Ahipa is a short-day plant therefore, the flowering will take place under decreasing a day length.“ you forgot to delete the „a“, I think. A full stop after plant might be a good Idea as well. You wrote thousand seed weight, I think it‘s called „thousand grain weight“. One confusing comma is found in the sentence „Every plant shows a single swollen root, which thins out, toward both ends.“. I suppose the second comma has to be removed.

Agricultural Aspects You described the Andean bean as a plant that is cultivated in a few villages only anymore. Therefore, I wouldn‘t claim that this plant needs to be sown in a bed that has been loosened up to a depth of 25 cm with a hoe. This is just the way the farmers that are still growing the Andean bean do it and it does not necessarily mean, that this plant needs to be cultivated this way. I don‘t understand the logic of this sentence: „The high drought tolerance can provide high protein forage for livestock and other herbivores and at the same time poses a good protection from erosion.“ In the following I just give you sentence I found in jour article with my corrections/suggestions: „The removal of K at harvest was about 20.2 kg K/ha.“ -> Was that in a trial? I don‘t think the K removal is uncorrelated with the yield...

„Yields can be reduced up to 30% if infected by this virus.“ -> If the plant is infected by etc.

„The tubers of P. Ahipa are harvested, if the tubers show a marketable weight,“ -> ...are harvested as soon as the tubers show...

„The vegetative top is often left on the field to later incorporate it into the fields.“ I would write „ to be incorporated into the fields later“

Did you mean the storage temperature with your term „post-harvest temperature“?

„The storage however, changes the composition of starch and sugar ratio in the direction of...“ -> ...changes the ratio of starch and ...

Nutritional Aspects „This is a very high value and“-> this is of very high value...

„Ahipa is a nearly perfect material for the starch industry.“ -> the same point as with the large-scale cultivation-only one aspect isn‘t sufficient to make a crop suitable for a certain system. „Altogether the tuber shows a very good nutritional composition.“ Nothing on earth is good or bad, everything has his advantages and disadvantages. You might be a bit to enthusiastic about this plant at this point. I think a wikipedia article should be neutral and not biased.

General: I seem to be very critical, but still, I think you invested a lot of time into this task and it is an interesting article to read. Thanks very much!

simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.208.102 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]