Xyvi
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2020) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Xyvi, 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) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
editHi Xyvi, I posted my review of your article! It should be available under the peer review section. Good work so far! Chase.anselmo (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Xyviara Davis Peer review
edit1. 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? This article contains an extensive amount of information about Salmon. It also includes many comparisons to other species and ascendants of Salmon shown in charts.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? An entire physiology or behavior section can be added to this article. This would be an improvement because it can bring focus back onto Salmon instead of the organisms that they interact with.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing the author could do to improve the article is add more information about the natural mechanisms of Salmon as an individual species without the relationships that they have with other organisms.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? I would love to apply the organization of additional information using charts in some way. The charts were concise and grabbed my attention.
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 sections of this article are organized in a sensible order. The contents flow with ease. It is not listed where you would like to add in this information, but the information about the salmon’s sensory systems or any physiology information would be a good addition to the article. 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? The length of this article is equal to the importance of the article’s subject. Salmon are a well-known species that interact with different organisms. I do think that there is a great deal of information, but none of it is off-topic.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? This article does not draw conclusions or try to convince readers of anything. This article is very informational and opens up further discussion about the Salmon species. 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." I did not see any words that caused me to believe that the article is not neutral. All of the information is presently unbiased in my opinion. 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? This article contains information that is heavily supported by a great variety of RELIABLE sources.
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. The statements seem to be well balanced between sources. Some single sentences are even supported by multiple sources.
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! The statements in this article are all sourced well. I went through some of them to determine if the information presented included in the articles, and it was plus more. Xyvi (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Xyviara Davis