Chen.shuj
Hello edit
Hi Neighbor RedMarket19 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
Hello, Chen.shuj, 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) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review edit
I apologize for my lack of advice on actual content, I'll admit that the topic is a bit above my head. Overall, I think the page would benefit most from some re-structuring, as well as more information. Expansion in each of the sections would be useful, as would adding more sources, if possible.
In terms of structure, the “Properties” section in Compact Space article is not bulleted, but rather in subsections. Perhaps it would be helpful to follow this model, if the necessary information is available. Combining “Basic Examples” and “Examples” sections into one larger Examples section, with basic and advanced (or whatever you would classify the Khalimsky line as) as subsections, would be easier to read.
Are there any sources available on the history of the topic? That might be a beneficial section to add. Adding “See Also” and “External Links” sections might also be worth doing.
Citations need some work: in-text citations and a list of references need to be added.
Some minor edits: Why are there bolded terms in the “Definitions” section? Links to these terms might be more useful, if the pages exist. I would also suggest checking that linked terms are linked at the first time the word is used; homeomorphisms, for example, is not. Also, can a link to Khalimsky line be added? Should equations be in a separate line, as in the Compact Space article equations? If possible, adding some pictures would be a nice tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awalsh621 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Now for your other peer review 1:
Major Points: Your formatting under the example section is poor, use some sort of formula editor to make it look nice. Expand that example as well, as it should be in more depth than the basic examples. Consider expanding the properties section with examples that demonstrate the properties. Get more sources, I'm sure you have them.
Minor Points:
Try adding to the introduction using simple English so that everyone can understand what this is, not just those heavily based in mathematics. The definition section in particular is highly technical, try making it more simple. Perhaps give the simple definition in the introduction and leave the mathematical one where it is?
Serrion (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Peer review 2 edit
Overall, I think the article is definitely starting to look a lot more like the model article. One major suggestion I have at this point is to try to find more sources. If it's difficult to find sources that talk specifically about the topic, it might be worth expanding your search to have a slightly broader focus and to try searching for relevant terms. It's a bit more tedious, but I've found that to help a lot with mine, in any case. In terms of how well a non-expert can understand the article, it seems as if some sections are quite understandable, with shorter and more simple sentences, while others could benefit from revision. It may be beneficial to go through the article, particularly the introduction, to make sure that any terminology is linked to another page (and that the link is on the first use of the word - homeomorphic, for example, should be linked in the introduction). I also noticed that the introduction mentions that cut-points are used in topology, but there isn't a section on applications. If this makes sense with the topic, an applications section should be added. Finally, the article would certainly benefit from additional figures, if that's at all possible.
Some minor edits: is the formatting for the equation for "the Khalimsky line" correct? It seems long enough that it might need to be its own line. The structure definitely looks better, though my one suggestion would be to make the "examples" part of the "definition" section its own section. Awalsh621 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Major Points: Overall, the article has been greatly improved from the stub it was before editing. While the article has improved in terms of readability, there is still room for improvement overall. In particular, the last two paragraphs of the introduction get into complex mathematical terms without sufficiently explaining them or making the terms a link to their wikipedia article. If you're going to use terms like homeomorphic in the introduction, you have to define them in an easy to understand way. The introduction, more than any other portion of the article, should be accessible to the broadest possible audience.
Minor Points: Certain terms are bolded for reasons that are not clear. Sections that use mathematical formalism should be formatted so as to properly convey the information. For example, 10^{23} looks a lot different than , so keep that in mind. Serrion (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
