User talk:Cassie909
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Cassie909, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam 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. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review #2[edit]
The Lead Section: - Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The lead section gives a great introduction to the topic. At first glance, it seems a little short but once I read the rest of the article it only makes sense to keep it short and sweet.
- Does the lead section report the most important information? For what is there, I believe that it fits as important information but there could be a little more to add!
Structure: - Are the sections organized well? Would they make more sense presented some other way? The sections are organized well. I think that collegiate swimming could go near competitive swimming, but that's all I'd change.
Balance - Are any major view points left out? No view points left out.
- Is anything off-topic? Nothing really off topic - I think it covers a broad range of information that is necessary to understand the topic fully.
Neutral - Is the article neutral in tone? Yes
- Can you guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, I cannot.
- Are there words or phrases that don't seem neutral? Look for "the best," "most people," "obviously, [x]" Under common injuries, it tells us "the best" way to avoid injuries is to diagnose early. I think that could be reworded because technically if you diagnose an injury, you are already injured and not avoiding the injury in the first place.
- Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." I see "some professional swimmers who do not hold a national or world ranking are considered the best in regard to their technical skills."
Reliable sources - What types of sources does the article primarily use? Archived journals, articles, newspapers.
- Are there unsourced statements in the article? Not that I could find!
- Are there only a few sources, or is most of the information from only one or two sources? There are many sources! Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dciccoli (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)