Jmmcgill
Welcome!
editHello, Jmmcgill, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam 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
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review #2
editThe lead is a concise explanation of the topic of the article and includes clarification on future terms which may appear within the article. From there, I found the article to be well-organized, in both its sub-topics as well in a paragraph-to-paragraph sense. The two headings of two-oar and single oar sculling provide good umbrella topics that the rest of the information fits under, and the topics within each of these flow as well - I like how after summarizing the technique of single-oar sculling, the article goes into the history behind it in a chronological perspective, ending with some of its widespread modern usages. The information contained within was neutral and comprehensive, going into detail about the specific techniques for each style and how they differently affect the movement of the boat. I appreciated the mentioned contrasts between sculling and sweep rowing, because as someone not previously familiar with rowing hearing both described allowed me to better visualize each technique. I did find that some of the descriptions in the article took me a few times reading through to exactly visualize, probably because of my aforementioned unfamiliarity, but that does not mean they were written in an unclear manner, and I'm sure most of the intended audience for the article will be able to better understand the content. While a lot of the technical information was not cited, I did not feel that it was untrustworthy, and after looking at the sources it looks like much of it came from the informative primer on sculling from Peinert, which presents itself as a worthy source. All other specific information seemed to be adequately cited. On a visual front, I liked the variety of pictures present in the article, especially the one in the China section, as it validates how far back historically they were making use of the technique. Overall, I found the article to be very detailed and informative, flowing easily from section-to-section and paragraph-to-paragraph. While I did encounter some initial confusion during my reading, this is probably due more to the technical and specific nature of the subject matter than fault on the writer's part. Evanm3195 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review #2
editHi there! My name is Jacqueline Jacobs and I am peer reviewing your article! The Lead Section: - Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? I am satisfied with the lead of this article because I was not familiar with the term “Sculling” but as I read the lead section I could see that it was a similar to rowing. - Does the lead section report the most important information? I wouldn’t say it provides much important information, but it introduces the topic to people who are unfamiliar with what it is. Structure: - Are the sections organized well? Would they make more sense presented some other way? The sections are organized well. There are not many so it looks neat, brief and concise. Balance
- Are any major view points left out? I don't see any major points left out. - Is anything off-topic? No, nothing is off topic. Neutral - Is the article neutral in tone? Yes
- Can you guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, this Wikipedia page is very informative filled with facts. There are no personal opinions in the article. - Are there words or phrases that don't seem neutral? Look for "the best," "most people," "obviously, [x]" No - Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No Reliable sources
- What types of sources does the article primarily use? This article used sources mostly from articles and sport websites. - Are there unsourced statements in the article? Nothing that I could find.
- Are there only a few sources, or is most of the information from only one or two sources? There are 10 sources which I could consider to be a good amount for the length of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.16 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)