AlphaEta19
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Oklahoma/Science,_Nature_and_Society_(Fall_2018) . |
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_to_Newton_(Fall) . |
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Oklahoma/Science,_Nature_and_Society_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
editHello, AlphaEta19, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHello, AlphaEta19, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop making edits to Wikipedia as I don't think you have acquired enough skill yet. I suggest you seek guidance at the TeaHouse or Ian above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC).
John Wallis article
editHi. I noticed that your additions to the John Wallis article have been reverted twice, and I wanted to touch base with you about what's going on there.
Your first edits, these ones, made some small changes to the wording of the article. As a general rule, Wikipedia strives for less wordy writing. "Maths" is the appropriate term in English usage, so it's appropriate to use it in an article about an English mathematician. If you do make changes, make sure that they're correct - changing "maths" to "mathematics" might be ok, but "mathmatics" isn't.
Your second set of changes have similar problems. For example, you replaced "Another" with the following
Today we have all sorts of supplemental tools to aid us in our calculations, technology has since then improved more and more, calculation now are very distinct from calculations then. For example,another
- Wikipedia should be written in an encyclopaedic tone. Phrases like "Today we have" aren't in keeping with that tone. If you find yourself using the first or second person in a Wikipedia article, there's a good chance you're getting the tone wrong. Similarly, since Wikipedia articles are meant to be continually edited and changed, "today" is a confusing term and should be avoided.
- Be specific. Don't say things like "all sorts of supplemental tools to aid us in our calculations" - "all sorts" doesn't mean anything. Specify what you're talking about, and make sure that you are using sources to back up what you say. Similarly, "more and more" is too vague, as is "now very distinct".
- In the final line, there's a space missing after the comma. Copy-editing your work is important. You also added quite a bit of whitespace - this isn't done in Wikipedia articles.
When you're adding references, make sure they are real references. Don't just add superscripts - make sure you're adding properly-formatted inline references as outlined here.
Finally, if someone reverts your work, you should read their edit summaries and make sure you don't repeat the same mistake. Ideally, you should engage with them before editing the article further.
Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I add to the sensible remarks above that the John Wallis biography is an important and mature article which shows signs of having been worked on by editors of wide knowledge and experience. Such articles are best left to editors of comparable attainment (PhD or equivalent level would be optimum) and may not be suitable for new editors who might best start in less conceptually demanding areas such as sport or popular culture. WP:Competence is required, and the degree of competence depends on the topic. John Wallis may not have been a good choice for first edits. My best wishes for your future editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC).
Peer Review
editAncient Greek Astronomy
- Line 26: The Planets in Early Greek Astronomy: Change “truely” to “truly” and Change “Aristotles” to “Aristotle’s”
John Wallis
- Line 39: This is interesting! Could you expand on how he put these languages to use? Was he involved in any translations for example?
- Line 113: In any other case this sounds great, but in this instance I would not use words such as “we” since this tone is out of line with the tone of the encyclopedia.
Musica universalis
- Line 11: Wow the content is so interesting! Again, I would be careful with tone here. You do not want to get too analytical because that strays away from the Wiki’s policy that you should only present the information. Although the analysis is really good, in this case, I would try to reword this passage to make it less analytical-like.
- If you want to add more to this page, one idea could be to elaborate on the three branches of medieval concept of musica as presented by Boethius. There’s currently not much about those branches, and as a reader, I was curious to learn more about each branch. Another thing to add if you wanted to is if any other scientists mentioned this concept in their works.
Overall, you’ve incorporated a lot of interesting information to your articles! The biggest thing I think is to keep your tone as neutral as possible (which is such a hard thing to do because we’ve been trained over the years to be analytical and voice our opinions!).
Great job!
Historyscience (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)