User talk:Serrion
Hello![edit]
This is an assignment!Jack1104ch (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hello jack
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Serrion, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Peer review 1[edit]
Major points: There aren't much to review of since you only put in your plan. I will just talk generally about your plan. Your plan focuses on expanding the original article by finding more sources and going into more depth. I think this is a great start. I want to suggest other places that worth editing.
This article can benefit from some subsection headings. When I read the section "Division", I expected there to be subsections so that I can get an idea of it just from reading sub-headings. But there's no sub-headings, it took me a while to understand its general idea. Since the audience is everyone, sub-headings can help them understand much faster.
You said you want to put more background of on the development in the introduction. I think these information should be written in its own section, usually the first section, because that's how a lot of wiki articles do it. Plus, introduction should just talk about general information, it's better to put all the details of the development in later sections.
Minor points: Maybe you should delete the last line "Categories: Computational physics" because that shows your sandbox page in that category...
Chen.shuj (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
It looks like you have a good idea of what needs to be done, so that's certainly a good start. One thing that immediately sticks out to me is that there aren't many images, so finding some relevant ones might be useful. The computational chemistry article has a section on history and mentions a few people who are noteworthy in the field, both of which would be important to mention in your own article. The overview section is a bit strange and inconsistent with the style of most Wikipedia articles that I've seen, so perhaps the information in that section could be redistributed. The introduction might be a good fit for a lot of it. The citations in the article overall are surprisingly sparse and there appears to be plenty of room to add in ones that you have found.
A few minor suggestions: many of the sentences are rather long and complex, and would benefit from being truncated and simplified, both in terms of structure and diction. I'll admit that I found the article fairly difficult to understand, so I would just be conscious (in writing and in editing what's already there) of the level of understanding your average reader has of the concepts and terms mentioned.
Computational physcis[edit]
Hi Serrion. I'm not sure what specific section of the computational physics article you're referring to, but the basic issues here probably aren't dependent on that.
- Is the source reliable? This is the minimum criterion for using a source. Personal websites often generally aren't, but there are some exceptions - see "Questionable and self-published sources.
- If so, is it the best source?
- Is it being used to place undue weight on some minor concept? You mentioned that it's being used to support "a section that casts doubt on the field". Reasonable doubts about an academic field of study would probably be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and (unless they're very new) would have been discussed in secondary sources.
My recommendation would be to spend a few minutes looking for more reliable sources, looking for secondary sources that discuss them, and failing that, remove the section. But make sure you explain your logic, both in your edit summary and (preferably also) on the article's talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ian, thanks for the advice. The particular section that troubles me is "Status in physics". The source is seemingly linked in that section, as I can find it in the code there but not at the reflist at the end of the article. If you have time, feel free to look at that section/source and let me know what you think. Serrion (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)