User talk:Yarelsu
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Yarelsu, 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) 19:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review for Brandt's vole Additions in Sandbox Bcradd1[edit]
Hey, I just did your peer review for your edits for Brandt's vole. I suggested a few edits, mostly for flow. Overall, the information is concise, it just may need a little rewording so it flows better and so you dont repeat yourself too much.
★ Bcradd1 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I just realized im also supposed to put the questions on here as well
- 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?
- a. The information is clear and informative
- 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
- a. The wording could be reworked for better flow
- 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
- a. Alter wording and structure so you don’t repeat yourself or say the same thing multiple times
- 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
- a. Not really
- 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?
- a. I assume that this will fit in the article well but “cold adaptations” as a section title could be stronger to match 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?
- a. The article seems appropriate length
- 7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
- a. No, it is neutral
- 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."
- a. No, it is 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?
- a. Yes, they cite journal articles
- 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.
- a. No, the sections for the sources are about the same length
- 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!
- a. no
- Bcradd1 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Peer review[edit]
Overall, the information added on the vole. I think the biggest thing that can be improved with this draft is the integration of information. The information used could be integrated a little better. I feel transitioning between the two pieces of information could help the flow of the paragraph. Overall I feel this draft is fine but could be worded a little better.
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? The information added is beneficial and added in a concise way. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I feel working on the transition a little between the information added would be beneficial. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I feel like working on the wording and flow is the biggest thing to improve 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 putng it? It fits well where it is placed 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? Overall, it seemed to be an appropriate length 7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The article does not seem to try and draw conclusions. 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 words were 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? They are from 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 information is well balanced between the two 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! There are no unsourced statements.