User talk:MaddyWade14/sandbox

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Maddydumont in topic Comments on Rough Draft

Comments on Bibliography

edit

Maddie: You definitely have limited material to work with here, but I'm not wild about your first reference; because there are no citations in this newspaper article, it's hard to know how reliable the information is. Njclum (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comments on Outline

edit

Maddie: Ideally an outline will present the points you tend to make in your draft in a logical order with a notation of what source they came from. Njclum (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comments on Rough Draft

edit

Maddie: You have some good information here but it needs some reorganizing. I would put the sentence on tadpoles first, then the sentence on aggressive feeding (specifying adults), then your information on foraging around porch lights and dung as evidence of their aggressive feeding style. It appears that there was a stomach content analysis done? It's fine to list these from most to least common items. Then end with your sentence on what factors affect variation in the diet. Make sure to include ciations to indicate what information came from what source.Njclum (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply


Maddydumont (talk)== Comments on Bibliography == Wade: Limited amount of references, could you find any more? That way you're not taking all the information from only once source.Maddydumont (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comments on Outline & Rough Draft

edit

Wade: Maybe the outline could be formatted and structured better. Maybe you could discuss what the tadpoles eat, because that's their first stage of development, and then go onto what the frogs eat, and how they eat it. You mentioned that they were aggressive eaters, but you might also want to explain what that means. Also when you are listing the number of food particles found in their stomachs, I would list them all with the spelling of the numbers. Right now you spell out four and 2 which is inconsistent to read.

Other than that you have good information and it's interesting.Maddydumont (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)maddydumontMaddydumont (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply