Dianadixi

Welcome!

Hello, Dianadixi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Tosha's Peer Review

Overview: I thought this was good, and gave information regarding the topic while avoiding redundancies. The only suggestion I have is to clarify the "in nearly one million times" wording, as I wasn't quite sure what this meant.

Structure: Very well laid-out, I thought it flowed and made sense as I was reading the article.

Balance: Each section seems well-proportioned and given equal weight. The only sentence I am unsure of is in the "Health Risks" section, where it says that they are "usually perceived extremely negatively". I'm not sure what would be the correct way to present this regarding Chernobyl, as it is usually thought of negatively. My only concern would be that the use of the word "negative" isn't neutral. But I'm not sure; it might be permissible when talking about this subject?

Neutral Content: I felt like this was neutral content. Very fact-based, I could not guess the opinion of the writer.

Reliable Sources: Seems as though all sources are academic or research-based. No one source is used too heavily.

Overall, I thought this was a good draft article! In the "Health Risks" section, there were two sentences that were repeated and could be edited out. Other than that, I thought you had a lot of good information and it was very precise. ToshaDuncan (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Tosha

Ways to improve Chernobyl groundwater contamination

Hello, Dianadixi,

Thanks for creating Chernobyl groundwater contamination! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Thank you for your new article on Chernobyl groundwater contamination.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Evaluating an article

Wildlife Observation: Wikipedia Article Evaluation Evaluating Content On the whole, the article's content is relevant to the topic. However, the section Issues leading to the extinction of animals relates to the matter of wildlife observation only indirectly. The author thoroughly elaborates on the effects of climate change, environmental pollution and deforestation on species extinction. This problem belongs to the topic of biodiversity decline while having a distant relation to animals observation, but it occupies one-third of the entire text. At the same time, the section of History is completely missing and sections of Importance and Research are developed only in general terms. In particular, the author briefly states that observation can help in biodiversity conservation, and lists the data usually collected in the observing process. These parts could be improved by incorporating the analysis of case studies and examples showing how wildlife observation really contributes to the solution of environmental problems. Evaluating tone The article's tone is mostly neutral. Yet in some cases the author seems to make general conclusions based on random or incomplete data. For example, he makes a statement that “notifying of where roadkill has occurred” is the primary example of dead animals observation. The same selective approach is observed in relation to the forms and methods of wildlife observation. The author lists and discusses birdwatching, livestreams and collecting data as main forms of live watching and observation, although these concepts evidently belong to different classification criteria. Birdwatching is distinguished by observation subject (birds), livestreams define observation formats (zoos and aquariums), while collecting data refers to observation methods. Evaluating Sources Most of the citations are relevant both by date (2015-2016) and accordance with claims they aim to support. However, few links do not work. In particular, 12th footnote concerning San Diego Zoo redirects the reader to the page that cannot be found. Information comes both from credible sources such as as NGOs (The Wildlife Society, Global Wildlife Conservation) or scholarly articles (Current Biology, National Geographic), and less reliable sources (Dosomething.org, Study.com). Checking the talk page The article does not have any comments and conversations on the talk page yet. Neither it has received a rating of importance. At the same time, the article was rated “Stub-Class” on the quality scale as a part of the WikiProject Environment, aiming to improve coverage of environmental topics by Wikipedia. On the whole, the difference in the way this encyclopedia discusses the topic compared to the class discussion is less formal and coherent way of representation, as well as focusing on commonplace practices instead of more precise research methods and specific monitoring programs.

Dianadixi (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)dianadixi (talk)