EPLSU2022
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome!
editHello, EPLSU2022, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review Completed
editHey! Just letting you know I completed my peer review of your Colombian Ground Squirrel article and published it. Crichm3 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review-I did it wrong last time
editWikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155 Your name: Carrie Richmond
Article you are reviewing: Columbian ground squirrel
1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
The article stays focused to the section and flows well with the preceding paragraphs. The article is concise and includes references that back up each claim. When the phrase "lactation period" was introduced it brought up a new topic that the author focused on, and provided new information about the species.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
I would suggest changing the end of the last sentence to contain less scientific jargon. The statistic seems unhelpful in comparison to the rest of the article, especially when thinking in terms of a general audience. You could write something like "which typically experiences a significant increase in concentration from the beginning of lactation to its peak at ~17 days postpartum". This would improve the addition to the article because it applies more towards Wikipedia's audience and stays focused on the species.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
The author's addition the article is necessary because it expands on the lactation period of this species. To improve the article further they could add some information to the areas of the Taxonomy section that are lacking. This section has information but the information is quite vague the further along the section goes.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
My article does not have a taxonomy section or a human interactions section. I think these would be a good addition to my article because the Rhim gazelle is endangered so it has information to contribute to a human interactions section, and all species could easily have a taxonomy section. In the taxonomy section I could include information on the Rhim gazelles ancestral lineage if information is available.
5. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it?
The sections of the article are organized well and in a fashion that makes it easy to read and follow. I don't think the order of the sections needs to be changed at all. The information they are adding makes sense and is being inserted in a part of the article that applies to the information being added.
6. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
The sections are all a justifiable length. The taxonomy section graphic is too large and does not provide enough useful information for the space it takes up. There isn't anything off topic in the article, but there is a lot of scientific jargon in the last paragraph of the Description section that makes it confusing to a general audience.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
The article is unbiased and does not try to sway the reader one way or another
8. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
No, the article maintains neutral language.
9. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
Some statements are not even cited. In the Ecology section, there is the statement "They are "one of the most vegetarian of all the ground squirrels"", but there is no reference for this claim. The rest of the information that is cited comes from a reliable source, most of which are journal articles.
10. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
No, the article uses a wide array of reliable sources that are spread throughout the article along with the information these sources contributed.
11. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
There are not citations for every source, but every source is listed in the footnotes. There are some statements that don't include references. There is one in the Ecology section-stated previously in my review-and a few in the beginning paragraphs of the Behavior section.