Jordanviv02
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2020) . |
Welcome! edit
Hello, Jordanviv02, 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) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Peer review edit
Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155 Your name: Whitney Martin
Article you are reviewing: Hummingbird
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? Your acritical is pretty well established so I was not completely sure where you wanted to add your sentences. Perhaps adding them in the song and vocal learning section would be helpful to future readers. Your part started out concise.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I feel like your sentences will be a good contribution because there really is no section or talk about the important role the syrinx plays.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Because your article is so involved and well establish just adding information that is not talked about and adding reliable sources helps!
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? No
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? The article is very well organized, but I was not sure where you wanted to add your information.
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? No everything seems informative and important.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, it was very neutral and provided information from reliable sources.
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 only thing I saw that may be considered this is “thought to be”, but I don’t really find it to not be 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? Your first source did not work, but your second one did. Throughout the whole article, the sources seem to be reliable.
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. Your sentences seem to be balanced. Each sentence has its own source and then you bring them both together. Overall, I think you did a good job.
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! No, everything was done properly.