Jckmena
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome! edit
Hello, Jckmena, 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)
Peer Review edit
Your peer review has been completed! Good luck :) ♥ Emigracew (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
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? a. This article is very well written and informative. I am impressed with the detail and conciseness of the article. The description of the tradeoffs of the carp for the different body form is very clear.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? a. There are some minor grammar issues and structuring issues that can be fixed, which would make the article more coherent.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? a. Fix the minor structure issues in sentence 2.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? a.
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? a. yes, It does make sense to add it to the predator response section because it is a predator response.
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? a. Everything is relevant and necessary.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? a. No, the article only states 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." a. All phrases are neutral.
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? a. There are 2 articles that do not have a link or name.
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. a. Each sentence has a different source.
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! a. The sources that I can access do agree with what is written.