Wikipedia

User:NoahMcGoff/sandbox

< User:NoahMcGoff

Week 12: Adding an Image edit

 
Cephalochordate lancelet anatomy

Here is a photo we will be adding to our 'Morphology' section NoahMcGoff (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Week 11: Expanding my Draft edit

 
Cephalochordate feeding structures

- Added a figure from Wikimedia Commons that shows the structures associated with Cephalochordate Feeding. I will be adding this figure to my 'Feeding' section draft

- My proposed changes, edits, and editions to the Cephalochordate article will be underlined to distinguish from the original article and my previous draft.

Cephalochordate article edit

Morphology Section edit

  • New: The general cephalochordate body plan is considered to be a dorsoventrally flipped version of earlier deuterostomes.[1] Gene-expression studies on embryonic patterning suggest that body axis formation has inverted somewhere between hemichordates and chordates, where the ventral formation of body structures in earlier hemichordates is observed to be dorsal in cephalochordates.

Feeding Section edit

  • Old: Cephalochordates employ a filter feeding system to consume microorganisms. The oral hood serves as the entrance for food particles, and possesses buccal cirri, which assist in sifting out larger food particles before they enter the buccal cavity.[2] Epithelial cilia lining the mouth and pharynx form a specialized "wheel organ" situated at the dorsal and posterior end of the cavity. The motion of the cilia resembles the motion of a turning wheel, hence the organ's name,[2] and transports the captured food particles. Behind this organ is the velum, which acts as an internal filter before food enters the pharynx.[3] The food particles adhere to secreted mucus on the pharyngeal bars before being brought to the epibranchial groove on the dorsal side of the pharynx.[2] Following this, the food is transferred to the gut, and excess water is pumped from the pharynx through the pharyngeal slits. This excess water passes through the atriopore and is then excreted from the body.[3]
  • New: Cephalochordates employ a filter feeding system to consume microorganisms. The oral hood serves as the entrance for incoming food particles. Buccal cirri, projections that originate from the free edge of the oral hood, assist in sifting out larger food particles before they enter the buccal cavity.[1] Epithelial cilia lining the inside walls of the oral hood then bring the food particles into the mouth.[1] The coordinated movement of several ciliated tracts helps facilitate food ingestion through a rotating motion that is similar to that of a wheel, causes cilia to be referred to as “wheel organ”.[1] One of these ciliated tracts located on the oral hood forms a ciliated cavity, called Hatschek's pit, which aids in food collection by secreting mucous into the buccal cavity to capture food particles.[1] Located behind the buccal cirri is the velum, which acts as an internal filter before food enters the pharynx.[3] The food particles adhere to secreted mucus on the pharyngeal bars before being brought to the epibranchial groove on the dorsal side of the pharynx.[2] Food particles are then transferred to the gut and excess water is pumped out of the pharynx through the pharyngeal slits. Excess water passes through the single atriopore as it is excreted from the body.[1]

Intro Paragraph edit

  • Old: A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordate subphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates are chordates with all 5 synapomorphies, the characteristics all chordates have during the larval or adulthood stages. These synapomorphies include: notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharynx and post-anal tail. The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum.[4] Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes.
  • New: A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordatesubphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called Amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates possess 5 synapomorphies, or primary characteristics, that all chordates have at some point during their larval or adulthood stages. These 5 synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail (see chordate for descriptions of each). The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum.[4] Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes and are commonly found in warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide.[1] With the presence of a notochord, adult amphioxus are able to swim and tolerate the tides of coastal environments, but they are most likely to be found within the sediment of these communities.

Chordate article edit

Intro paragraph edit


Week 9: Response to Peer Reviews edit

Comments from Dr. Schutz

  • In morphology section, I will only cite Kardong at the end of first sentence since the rest of the information in this paragraph is from the same source and is in sequence.
  • I will crosslink the Lancelet Wikipedia page when able.
  • I will try to find another image to contribute in either the feeding or morphology section. We already have found one image that for some reason was included at the bottom of our ‘References’ section on our group page, however, I do not believe this image was seen because it is located in the wrong place.

Comments from Peers

  • Since several classmates commented that it was difficult to compare the changes that I made to the original version, I will either bold or highlight my changes to make the review process easier for the reviewer.
  • In my proposed edits to the ‘Chordate’ page, one peer felt that the sentence “Chordates get their name from their characteristic “notochord”, which plays a significant role in chordate structure and movement" was jammed into the paragraph. I understand what they are saying, but I do not think that this sentence ruins the flow of the paragraph.
  • Several peers also mentioned that I should include a section that details the 5 synapomorphies more in depth, however, Dr. Schutz stated early on that we should link to different articles so that we limit duplicating information that already exists. This is why instead of going in-depth on the 5 synapomorphies cephalochordates share, I instead include a link to the ‘Chordate’ page that describes each of them further and I mention this in the text.
  • I was also recommended to expand the ‘Morphology’ section I created, and that is one of my future plans for the drafts to come.
  • Someone also mentioned that I started the feeding section with a quote, however, I put quotations around my whole edits section but then forgot to remove the quotation marks before posting it. In other words, there are no actual quotes in this section.

Week 8: Peer Reviews - Cat Anatomy edit

First Draft: Ashley Press edit

- I really like that you decided to create sections for cat muscles to make the section easier to read for the reader.

- In the first bullet point, I would change “…tendons to allow…” to “tendons that allow” to make the sentence flow better.

- I think the second sentence could also be rephrased a little bit to make it easier to read. I would say, “Cats have skeletal and smooth muscle that enables movement, correct posture, and other biological functions.”

- The fifth bullet point is a little bit wordy and could instead say, “Feline muscles in cats allow voluntary and involuntary motion.”. I’m not really sure what the second sentence is trying to say or its direct relation to what is said in the previous sentence.

- In the “Abdominal Muscles” section, the first section edit could use either punctuation or add a word to make the first sentence seem less of a run-on sentence. I would change the first sentence to, “The muscle is located in the lumbodorsal fascia and ribs and its main function in abdominal compression.” Also, instead of directly saying “the muscle” I might include the actual name of the muscle you are speaking of. This would make the content clearer to the reader.

- I really like the second edit in the “Abdominal Muscles” section, but might consider adding “The” to “innermost muscle” at the start of the sentence, so it reads, “The innermost muscle is…”.

- In the “Deltoids” correction, there are some grammatical errors that can be fixed to improve the flow and make this section easier to read. In the first sentence I would say, “In cats, the deltoid muscles are made up of the acromiodeltoid and the spinodeltoid and are located lateral to the trapezius muscles.”. The rest of the sentences have wonderful content, but most of them sound like run-on sentences when reading them. Focus on using punctuation where you can, or restructuring sentences to avoid using the word “and” multiples times throughout a sentence.

- In the “Head and Integument” section, you mention that references need to be made, but I do not see a Reference being included in your draft for this section. Is this something you plan on including?

- In the “Pectoral” section, the first word of the first sentence reads “Pectroalbrachius” which I believe is wrong because ‘pectoral’ is spelled wrong. I assume it is either supposed to be “Pectoral brachius”. The wording of the first sentence also needs to be fixed. “I would start by saying, “The pectoral brachius muscles …”, however, I am not sure what the “activate the pectoral muscles” is supposed to be saying.

- I do not see any plagiarism, and all content seems to be relevant. I really like that you are condensing sections and adding more to certain sections to make the content both better and easier to read.

- The content appears to be written in a neutral manner where bias is not included.

- Overall, I would really focus on grammar and sentence structure, because there were many instances where I was unsure as to what was trying to be said. NoahMcGoff (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

First Draft: Cyah Dade edit

- It is great that you are choosing to expand the introductory and background paragraph to the ‘Cat Anatomy’ page.

- After the second sentence I would include a citation because the information provided in this sentence seems like it is a fact taken from another source.

- For sentences 3 and 4 you include in-text citations in parentheses format. While this does work, I think including a reference number at the end of each sentence instead would make the content easier to read and would not disrupt the flow of the paragraph as much.

- All the content is written in a neutral tone, and I do not see any plagiarism as long as citations are included in the sentences I mentioned in the above comments.

- The flow of content from sentence to sentence also reads very well. Great Job! NoahMcGoff (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

First Draft: Maria Benitez edit

- I really enjoy your edit and revision to the ‘Legs’ section of this page. Not only did you make the existing information easier to read, but you also added important information that was not mentioned in the original section.

- In the second sentence, part of it sounded a bit wordy. I would consider changing “…able to walk much more quieter and quickly than other animals” to “…able to walk quieter and quicker than other animals”. This should improve the flow without detracting from the content.

- Great job including citations where needed throughout this section, and all of them link to the references section which is good. However, the first citation you provide in the text is a citation for the Digitigrade Wikipedia page which I do not believe is considered a reliable source. Instead of including this as a citation, I would just leave the link to the digitigrade page that you already provide in the first sentence. However, you could look on the ‘Digitigrade’ page and look at the source they used to write the information that you took from their page. This could then be the citation you provide instead.

- For the third citation that you provide in the text, it links to a “14 Fun Facts about cats” article in the References section. I could be wrong, but I’m not sure this is a reliable source and would double-check to see that is able to be used.

- Overall, great job! NoahMcGoff (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

First Draft: Cindy Ocotlan-Garcia edit

- I see that you have edited and added to the ‘Mouth’ section, but it would be beneficial to the reviewer if you also included the ‘old’ or ‘original’ section in your draft so that is easier to compare what changes you have made.

- In the third paragraph, I believe the sentence “The papillae also help hold water on the tongue for drinking” could use a citation as it seems this information was taken from another source.

- Similar to the above comment, I also think that the sentence that makes up the short fourth paragraph regarding oral structures and vocalizations also needs a citation.

- This section was really easy to read, and the flow was great. Each sentence shifted from one idea to another in an order that made sense to properly convey the topic of the paragraph and overall section.

- All the content appears to be written in a neutral tone, and once the couple of citations are presented (mentioned in comments 2 and 3) there should be no plagiarism present.

- The addition of the second paragraph regarding dentation and dentition was a very worthy addition and really helped make this section better.

- Overall, wonderful job!NoahMcGoff (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 8: Peer Reviews - Bird Anatomy edit

First Draft: Allie Curtis (Axial Skeleton Sub-heading) edit

Content edit

- When you mention the synsacrum region being similar to the sacrum in mammals, I feel like it could be beneficial to provide an example of how the synsacrum is similar to the sacrum in humans for example.

- I really enjoy the diagram of the pelvic girdle of a bird and think it pairs well with the content mentioned in the vertebral column section. I am wondering however, if it is possible to either find an additional figure or label on an existing one, the different vertebrae associated with the 5 sections of the vertebral column in a general bird.

- The edits/additions provided are easy to read and hit the sweet spot for providing the right amount of detail without being too broad or providing too much detail.

Structure edit

- When describing the five sections of vertebrae in the vertebral column, I noticed that you sometimes mention the body region of the vertebrae in parentheses before the colon and sometimes after the colon. For example, you mention “Pygostyle (tail): this region is…” but also mention” Cervical (11-25): (neck)”. I think that keeping the formatting the same for each of the 5 sections of vertebrae would make the structure of this section easier to read. For the cervical region specifically, I think it would read better if you said “Cervical (neck): vertebrae 11-25”.

- The general structure of your edits/additions are very easy to follow and making the information appealing to read.

- The 3 citations provided in the text are legit sources and properly cited, however I might create a Literature Cited section within your first draft section to make even easier to follow.

- There does not appear to be any plagiarism.

-All the links to other pages within the text also appear to be relevant and properly done.

Copyedits edit

- When talking about “The chest consists of the furcula…”, this sentence sounds like a run-on sentence to me. I feel like this could be fixed if a period replaces the semicolon following “…form the pectoral girdle;…”. Since you provide a picture of the pelvic girdle in the vertebral column section, I’m wondering if it would also be beneficial to provide a diagram of the chest girdle since it is mentioned in your draft. This could be a potential addition for next draft.

- Overall, most of my recommendation are grammar error and shouldn’t be too difficult to fix. Wonderful job! NoahMcGoff (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

First Draft: Janet Chen (adding a syrinx subsection in the communication section) edit

Copyedits edit

- The first part of the first sentence is confusing to read and I feel like is missing a word or punctuation, however, I have not been able to figure out what it is missing. The part that reads weird is “Unlike other vertebrate birds have both a larynx and pharynx, with the syrinx being exclusive to birds”. I feel like there should be a comma after “vertebrate birds…”, but also feel like another word is missing after the comma.

- In the second sentence beginning with “Birds use the syrinx…”, I feel like “rather than” could be replaced with “instead of” to flow better. In addition, if you mention that the larynx isn’t used for sound production in birds, I feel like it would be beneficial to mention in which animals the larynx has been used for creating sounds.

Content edit

- In the second paragraph of the “Syrinx” section, you include the sentence “The syrinx's lower placement in the trachea requires a bigger phonation threshold…” which should have a citation because it doesn’t sound like you got this knowledge from another source.

- After the first sentence of the third paragraph of the “Syrinx” section I believe a citation is needed. The flow of this sentence is also odd, and I think it has to do with the end of the sentence that reads “...the larynx in different trachea length”. I’m not really sure what is trying to be said in regard to trachea length. Maybe adding an “s” on “length” would suffice.

- In the second sentence of the third paragraph, you use the term “loudness” which I think could be replaced by a word like “volume” or even “intensity”. The term ‘loudness’ just sounds odd to read. - The citations lead to a proper reference, but I think it could be beneficial to try and find another resource or two to help add to this section in the future.

Structure edit

- The structure of your “Syrinx” section was really easy to follow and nicely laid out for the reader. I think the figures are good additions but I would consider linking to them or mentioning them in parentheses in the text when the trachea, larynx, and syrinx are first mentioned so that the reader can use the figures to better understand the ideas you are presenting in the text.

- Overall, most of the fixes I recommend are grammatical and deal with sentence structure, but I think you did a wonderful job on creating this new section and I believe it will really improve the bird anatomy page. NoahMcGoff (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 6: Draft 1 edit

Cephalochordate article edit

Morphology Section edit

  • New/beginning: "The general cephalochordate body plan is considered to be a dorsoventrally flipped version of earlier deuterostomes.[1] Gene-expression studies on embryonic patterning suggest that body axis formation has inverted somewhere between hemichordates and chordates, where the ventral formation of body structures in earlier hemichordates is observed to be dorsal in cephalochordates."[1]

Feeding Section edit

  • Old: "Cephalochordates employ a filter feeding system to consume microorganisms. The oral hood serves as the entrance for food particles, and possesses buccal cirri, which assist in sifting out larger food particles before they enter the buccal cavity.[2] Epithelial cilia lining the mouth and pharynx form a specialized "wheel organ" situated at the dorsal and posterior end of the cavity. The motion of the cilia resembles the motion of a turning wheel, hence the organ's name,[2] and transports the captured food particles. Behind this organ is the velum, which acts as an internal filter before food enters the pharynx.[3] The food particles adhere to secreted mucus on the pharyngeal bars before being brought to the epibranchial groove on the dorsal side of the pharynx.[2] Following this, the food is transferred to the gut, and excess water is pumped from the pharynx through the pharyngeal slits. This excess water passes through the atriopore and is then excreted from the body.[3]"
  • New: "The oral hood serves as the entrance for incoming food particles. Buccal cirri, projections that originate from the free edge of the oral hood, assist in sifting out larger food particles before they enter the buccal cavity.[1] Epithelial cilia lining the inside walls of the oral hood then bring the food particles into the mouth.[1] The coordinated movement of several ciliated tracts helps facilitate food ingestion through a rotating motion that is similar to that of a wheel, causes cilia to be referred to as “wheel organ”.[1] One of these ciliated tracts located on the oral hood forms a ciliated cavity, called Hatschek's pit, which aids in food collection by secreting mucous into the buccal cavity to capture food particles.[1] Located behind the buccal cirri is the velum, which acts as an internal filter before food enters the pharynx.[3] The food particles adhere to secreted mucus on the pharyngeal bars before being brought to the epibranchial groove on the dorsal side of the pharynx.[2] Food particles are then transferred to the gut and excess water is pumped out of the pharynx through the pharyngeal slits. Excess water passes through the single atriopore as it is excreted from the body.[1]"

Intro Paragraph edit

  • Old: "A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordate subphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates are chordates with all 5 synapomorphies, the characteristics all chordates have during the larval or adulthood stages. These synapomorphies include: notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharynx and post-anal tail. The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum.[4] Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes.
  • New: "A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordate subphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates possess 5 synapomorphies, or primary characteristics, that all chordates have at some point during their larval or adulthood stages. These 5 synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail (see chordate for descriptions of each). The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum.[5] Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes and are commonly found in warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide.[1]

Chordate article edit

Intro paragraph edit

Week 5: Finding Articles (Group Sandbox) edit

Topic: Cephalochordates edit

Group Sandbox

Articles edit

Images or other media edit

  • Replace the oral hood figure in the 'Feeding section' with a more detailed figure such as the one of a lancelet below. We can then describe, in greater depth than what is already presented, why the oral hood and other structures aid in feeding

NoahMcGoff (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 
Cephalochordate lancelet

Week 4: Assignment to Group Dissections edit

Option 1: Cephalochordates edit

  • Having proposed several edits to this article already, I believe there are many changes and additions that can be made to this article and I would really like to help expand this article and make it more reliable for public use. I would love to deepen my knowledge on some of the earliest chordates.
    • 3 proposed edits:
      • Add to the 'Morphology' heading I proposed and add significant information to this section to help explain why Cephalochordates behave like they do.
      • Revise the diagrams and figures included to help make them better and more understandable to the viewer.
      • Create an "Evolutionary History' section to explain how cephalochordates have led to the further development of organisms in the chordate phylum.

Option 2: Lamprey edit

  • I am more interested in Cephalochordates, but also find that the Lamprey article has sufficient space for addition and revision where I could really help out. Lampreys are also an interesting organism to enhance my knowledge on.
    • 3 proposed edits:
      • Add to the 'Distribution' section
      • Explain additional 'Biology' of Lampreys by explaining the biological characteristics of Lampreys and further explaining the functions of the features currently provided

Option 3: Hagfish edit

  • This article is more in-depth than the articles mentioned above, so my contributions would most likely be smaller impacts than the one's mentioned above which is why I have listed this as my third choice. I do find Hagfish to be intriguing which is why I have listed it as one of my choices.
    • 3 proposed edits:
      • I would love to add to the 'Eye' section to describe how the hagfish eye is significant to the development of more complex eyes.
      • I would add more I formation the the "Nervous System' section which would include going more in-depth how their neuroanatomy is similar to lampreys.
      • I would also use the textbook for this course to add to the 'Body features' section.

Week 3: Discussion and Edits to an Article edit

Discussion: edit

Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?

  • Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of information because they typically include biases and opinions without proper citations.

What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?

  • A company's website will often be more biased than another website that that describes the same company. Also, a company's website will often only present the good parts of the company while neglecting other parts.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?

  • A copyright violation includes using someone else's work without permission whereas plagiarism is using someone else's work and claiming it is your own.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?

  • Good techniques include reading an article and then, after reading, summarize what you read in your own words. Then use your notes to edit the article of choice rather than referring back to the original source that you took your notes on. It would also be beneficial to do sufficient research on the topic before taking notes or editing an article so that paraphrasing is easier to do.

Although my group was not able to participate in group discussion this week because we spent so much time on the lab activity, pondering these questions was very beneficial to me. At first glance, I thought of copyright violation and plagiarism as nearly the same thing without knowing the difference between the two. After this exercise, I now understand that a copyright violation is essentially plagiarism without claiming someone else's work as my own. I also learned about the importance of conducting sufficient prior research to make sure I know a topic before I start my article editing process.

Proposed Edits to Cephalochordates: edit

  1. I would add a 'Morphology' section before the "Feeding" section that discusses the structures of cephalochordates and how it enables their function. I would also include a general figure of at least the 5 synapomorphies labeled on amphioxus.
  2. I would start the 'Morphology' section by stating: " The general cephalochordate body plan is considered to be a dorsoventrally flipped version of earlier deuterostomes, including hemichordates. Gene-expression studies on embryonic patterning suggest that body axis formation has inverted somewhere between hemichordates and chordates, where the ventral formation of body structures in earlier hemichordates is observed to be dorsal in cephalochordates."[1] This would by my first paragraph to highlight the evolutionary change in body orientation from earlier deuterostomes to chordates, and I would now start talking about the actually synapomorphies, their function, and a much more detailed focus of cephalochordate body structures (including figures).
  3. I would replace the oral hood figure in the 'Feeding' section with a more detailed picture of the oral hood. Our textbook provides a detailed figure for the oral hood of amphioxus that could be used and cited.

Feedback: Discussion and Adding to an Article edit

  • Your notes on your discussion are really interesting and appreciated.
  • Your organization is also great. Makes it all very easy to follow and understand what you want to do.
  • I think that your suggestion about including the 5 synapomorphies is great. However, I would check out relevant sections of the [[1]] page first.
  • One KEY thing about Wikipedia is that you never want to duplicate content from one page to another. So perhaps it would be sufficient to link to that page or even add to it.
  • So for your suggestions on additions and/ or edits, one thing to ALWAYS do it to check other pages that may have that content first. So perhaps a link to the specific page describing that structure or group of structures is a more efficient and effective action.
  • So I do like these ideas but I wonder if they might work better in the chordate page instead with a summary here and a link to that?
  • I am so glad to see you adding references here. This is great practice. It is absolutely true that copy-pasting a citation from your sandbox to the article you are working on will result in an error maybe 50% of the time. However, by working on it here first, you will be familiar with the critical components of the citation and be able to preview it rather than struggle with trying to get that to work on the article page itself.
  • Just FYI, your citation for this book needs a bit more info... a date of publication for starters.
  • Remember to "sign" your work after submission. Even though this is your sandbox and you do not need to do it, get into the habit as it is an expectation of good faith practice when contributing to articles or talk pages.
  • Great work here. Looks really promising.Osquaesitor (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Week 2: Article Evaluation edit

Group Assignment: the article I have chosen to evaluate is Cephalochordates. edit

  • Our group decided that the article was missing a needed 'Morphology' section before the 'Feeding' section of the page, so on the 'Talk' page for Cephalochordates I left a comment that expressed the need for a cephalochordate morphology section. As a group, we felt that cephalochordate morphology needs to be understood in order to describe the feeding capabilities and traits of cephalochordates.

Individual Assignment on Cephalochordates edit

  • First Paragraph
    • In the introductory paragraph, the author mentions the structure of the cephalochordate notochord being "best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum". While I am not entirely sure that the research article cited for this evidence is true, this statement was also out of place within the paragraph. This was mentioned directly after a sentence mentioning the 5 synapomorphies of chordates. Additionally, the scientific name of the Bahamas lancelet was not written in correct form.
    • Although I have not found the original source, I believe the last sentence of the first paragraph could be plagiarism as the exact phrase is used by several other websites and the tone of their sentence differs from the rest of the paragraph.
    • The picture of a Cephalochordate is well-represented and explained, fitting well with the article.
  • Second Paragraph
    • The wording of the first sentence of the second paragraph is incorrect and too wordy.
    • Also in the second paragraph, the author only mentions the notochord when discussing the characteristics of cephalochordates without mentioning the dorsal hollow nerve cord or pharyngeal gill slits.
    • This paragraph merges two different topics, cephalochordate traits and the fossil record of cephalochordates. I believe there needs to be two different sections for each topic while expanding on the information provided.
    • The author describes cephalochordate size in a vague manner, by stating they are "very small". The size range for cephalochordates should be stated specifically.
  • Third paragraph
    • When mentioning 'extinct' and 'extant' species I believe hyperlinks could be added to both of these terms so that viewers unfamiliar with these terms can better understand them.
  • Phylogenetic tree of Cephalochordates
    • I believe this tree could be reconstructed to be easier to follow and more appealing to the reader.
    • I am also unsure as to where 'Cephalochordate' are supposed to be placed with the tree. The placing of this subphylum is confusing to the viewer.
  • Feeding Section
    • Links should be added for terms like pharynx and velum.
    • The tone of this section remains consistent and flows well.
    • I enjoy the inclusion of a photo of the oral hood in this section, but I believe greater detail on the diagram is needed to show where the oral hood on the cephalochordate being examined.
  • References Section
    • All references cited within the text appeared in the references section.
    • The references appear to be from reputable sources
  • Overall
    • The article appears to be written from a neutral point of view without bias. Information seems to be properly cited, however, there may be one or two instances of plagiarism. The links provided do work, but more should be included within the article. There is missing information and content gaps, where this article could really use a 'Morphology" section to connect cephalochordate background to their feeding characteristics.

Week 2: What makes a "good" Wikipedia article edit

Questions to consider: edit

  • What is a content gap?
    • A content gap is when a page is lacking important information, leaving knowledge gaps on a particular topic.
  • How does a person identify a content gap?
    • Someone could identify a content gap when information is either vague, missing, or skipped over on a certain topic.
  • What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
    • The person publishing the topic may lack knowledge knowledge or research in a particular area of their topic. In addition, there may not be enough research in the field to publish information on a particular subsection of a topic. If a particular page appears to have a content gap, another person can fill the gap with their own knowledge on the subject from their research.
  • Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
    • It does matter that a person has knowledge on their topic and abides by the rules of Wikipedia, however, a person doesn't need any qualifications to publish a Wikipedia page on a topic of interest. Others in the Wikipedia community will monitor and revise the work of others.
  • What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
    • Being "unbiased" means incorporating different sources from different places while leaving personal opinions on the subject matter out of the topic discussion. My own definition of "bias" involves incorporating my own opinion or opinions from other sources into the Wikipedia page I am working on.

References edit

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Kardong, Kenneth (2019). Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-1-260-09204-2.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h V., Kardong, Kenneth (2015-01-01). Vertebrates : comparative anatomy, function, evolution. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780078023026. OCLC 910511685.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ a b c d e f Fishbeck, D. Sebastiani, A. (2015). Comparative Anatomy: manual of dissection. Morton Publisher Company.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b c Holland, Nicholas; Somorjai, Ildiko (2020). "Serial blockface SEM suggests that stem cells may participate in adult notochord growth in an invertebrate chordate, the Bahamas lancelet". EvoDevo. 11 (22): 22. doi:10.1186/s13227-020-00167-6. PMC 7568382. PMID 33088474.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  5. ^ Holland, Nicholas; Somorjai, Ildiko (2020). "Serial blockface SEM suggests that stem cells may participate in adult notochord growth in an invertebrate chordate, the Bahamas lancelet". EvoDevo. 11 (22): 22. doi:10.1186/s13227-020-00167-6. PMC 7568382. PMID 33088474.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NoahMcGoff/sandbox&oldid=1022682501"