NolaMo2
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome!
editHello, NolaMo2, 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)
You have an overdue training assignment.
editPlease complete the assigned training modules. --SparrowGrrl (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review for Anolis carolinensis Additions in Sandbox Mjoh364 (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Mjoh364
editHey! I'm adding the peer review questions about your added information for Anolis carolinensis
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 revisions add a new section describing physiology which is a very useful add. I was surprised to see that there was no topic about physiology already in the article. Clearly these lizards live in places where its cold and it significantly affects their population which I think should be discussed in the overall article. Very good addition.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
-I didn’t see the sources used to write this new addition so I would say make sure to add them/properly format them in Wikipedia. The sources that the new information came from would give it credibility.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
-The most important thing the author could do to improve the article is to add the section about physiology. This would then allow other people to write on the subject, to further expand the knowledge of the physiology of this animal.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
-The article contained a gallery of detailed images of the lizard. This could be a good idea to add to my article about Sea Otters; could add diagrams/pictures of the sea otter anatomy to further describe the information I am adding to my article.
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?
-In the sandbox the writer describes that the new information would be put under a new category (Physiology) but did not say where this topic should be placed in the article. If I were adding this new physiology section, I would place it after the behavior section (especially since it talks about winter activity in the last sentence – would make the new information flow with the original article).
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 in the original article are slightly unequal but majority of topics are a paragraph or two long. Adding the new physiology section would continue this trend and would be a very relevant topic for the article.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
-The added information does not attempt to persuade the reader, very good conveyance of facts.
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."
-The added information was very neutral and the overall article is neutral and conveys facts.
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?
-There were no references for the added information so I would make sure to add those so people can fact check your information.
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.
-Same answer as the question above, you need to add your sources for the new information.
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!
-The added information has no sources to go with it, again just add the sources and make sure you don’t lean too heavily on one source.
Mjoh364 (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Mjoh364