User talk:EthanFio/sandbox
Peer Review Response[edit]
Hi, Ethan! Thank you for peer reviewing my article. I know it was mostly an outline, so your honest critique of that outline really helped me make it a full-fledged article. Thank you for your help. With your critique, I knew what I needed to fix and what I should focus on. I looked at some .gov and .org sources at your suggestion. Thank you for saying that my structure was good and easy to follow. That really helped easy my mind. Also, I did end up making a "Potential Negatives" have it's own heading. You were right; it was more balanced that way. Thanks again for taking the peer review seriously because it really helped me form my article! Haileywriter (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Potential Articles[edit]
1) Airborne Fraction
2) Biotic Pump
3) Ecological Yield
4) Arctic Front
5) Coniology/Koniology
COMMENT: All interesting topics, but what are the content gaps that you'll work on? What are the sources you'll use to fill those gaps? Make sure you answer those questions before assigning yourself one. Julianfulton (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanFio (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Outline[edit]
Coniology:
1)Earth: - Formation of atmospheric dust on Earth - Effect on organisms - Effect on people - Effect on environment
2) Moon: - Dust in lunar atmosphere
3) Other Celestial Bodies: - Dust on other planets and asteroids - Dust in galaxies/nebulae — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanFio (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review-Gabriel Delgado[edit]
Ethan,
According to the training module I will be critiquing you article's lead section, structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliability or sources.
Reading your lead section, overall it does tell me what the article is about and what your respective is in general.It does not really provide an in depth description of the importance of the topic but, the definition of the word Coniology is enough to let the readers know that it does affect them since we all live on earth and are largely influenced by Earth's atmosphere. The lead section does reflect the the entire article. You do mention the Earth and the Moon in the lead and your following section you have one each of those planets. Overall, you lead is just right for the topic you have although adding more would not be a bad idea.
As far as the structure of the article, since only the section about the Earth is developed there is not much that I can critique. The section themselves are clearly labelled and organized in sensible order though.
For your article's balance, nothing is out of the ordinary or seems off topic. However, going back to lack of development, there is not much that I can regarding it's balance as a whole. One critique I do have regarding it balance is more about balance of content rather than structure. Your article is focused more on the planets, you could possibly included section about dust itself or maybe the history of Coniology. The article itself is also very fair, it does not favor one particular viewpoint or stance.
I belie I touched upon this somewhat in the balance section, regarding your article neutrality, it does not favor one particular viewpoint on the subject. The subject in general doesn't really call for sides to be taken, rather more informational than controversial. The wording of it also does not present any favoritism to one side, it does remain fairly neutral as far as word choice. The article also does not make claim on behalf of an unnamed group or people.
As far as the resources, almost all of your content is not cited. I assume since this is a draft, citations will be added later on. The sources themselves do come from reliable locations. I would advise in adding more sources, and of different types since a majority of what you have are all peer reviewed journals.
Overall, a very interesting topic, it just needs to be more developed. -Gabriel Delgado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielramon43 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Draft Review - Tatum DeMarco[edit]
Hey Ethan,
I have been assigned to review your draft and its lead section, structure, coverage, neutrality, and sources.
Starting off with the lead section, although very small, it is mighty. There is not much depth or root to it however, as Gabriel mentioned in his peer review, you provide the definition of Coniology. which reflects the justification of other descriptions you later provide. It covers what your main theme of the article is though, which is the most important aspect.
Going into your structure, it is clear you have the desire for organization and clarity however, the lack of development on your draft makes it harder to critique this. You seem to be on the right track though.
As for your coverage, the section for Earth has received a lot more coverage than the other sections you have listed. I am assuming that this will be developed further in the future however, I will suggest covering more topics than just solid bodies of matter in space. There are so many examples of atmospheric dust in space that I think you could cover and go into detail about! Space is a crazy place that we have yet to have a full understanding of and it's so exciting, so I encourage to cover more than just planets and moons. Just be sure to maintain and balance between all the sections you decide to expand on.
The topic you have chosen to write an article on seems very neutral right off the bat. As you continue to expand, the neutrality remains throughout.
Lastly, your draft does not feature any sources, so be sure in provides and cite those moving forward.
All in all, seems like a very interesting and fascinating topic, just needs further development!
Tatum Tdaetaunm (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review - Response[edit]
Hi Gabriel and Tatum,
Thank you for peer reviewing my article! I really do appreciate you two taking the time to critique my current draft and leaving your suggestions!
Firstly, I do agree with you on the lead section, concerning if it is enough or if I should go more in-depth, I think the first sentence should be the definition as it already is, and then adding the importance of it right after and maybe keep that to a sentence or two. I like how Tatum described it as "short but mighty" but I do agree I should add more depth to the lead section.
Next the structure. As I am yet to progress past the Earth section in my current draft I did spend some time thinking about whether or not if I that should have Earth be my only section because there is a lot to talk about, but I think for the sake of structure and balance I should devote time to other aspects that involve atmospheric dust. I do have information about the moons atmospheric dust but not so much other celestial bodies, yet i'm sure with more research i'm certain I can further develop that section.
Next, coverage/balance. Along the lines of structure I agree with your critiques. I especially liked Gabriels critique of moving the focus away from planets and celestial bodies, to dust itself it. There is already a Wikipedia article about dust but it would probably be no harm in branching out and having a small section of "dust's properties on earth" or something along the lines of that.
Next, regarding neutrality. I am glad you two see not much favoritism or biases. However as I progress in the draft and add more information, it will certainly be something I keep in mind.
Lastly sources, Currently I do not have my citations in place as I plan to do that when the article is more developed and I am more confident in my words. However in my venture of finding reliable sources and doing research, I will certainly be adding more sources and gathering information, and as Gabriel mentioned to vary my sources as I am using a lot of peer viewed journals. This will be something I keep in mind when I do more research.
Once again thanks you two for peer reviewing my article! It is always nice to have come constructive criticism, and a fresh pair of eyes to see how to better improve the article.