User talk:Icedburg824/Spiny Dogfish

Peer Review #1

Peer Review: Ben Chance 1. Neutral content: The content you have listed is neutral and does not indicate bias of any sort.

2. Reliable sources: All 3 of your cited sources come from peer-reviewed journals making them reliable sources.

3. Clear structure: Is this draft well organized? Can you follow it easily? The draft has an organized structure. I can tell what sections in the article the edits are referring to and what group member plans to do those edits, for the most part.

What pages will be edited? It appears that the spiny dogfish article will be edited, but it is not clearly stated in the draft so this is something that could be cleared up.

Who will do the editing/adding of what topics/ pages? I see what sections that Charisma and Makenzie are focusing on, but putting your name next to a section that you are focusing on would be helpful as well.

Does there seem to be an even distribution of the contribution from all team members? Looking over the proposed group edits there seems to be an even contribution from all team members.

What sorts of contributions with regard to images are planned? There is no mention of adding any type of image or media to the article in the proposed edits. This could be something that your group can do in lab by taking a picture of your specimen. You could potentially take a picture of the anal fin since you mention it in your edits.

Do you see where this content might fit from the information provided? Meaning...can you see what part of an article and what page this will go in? Yes, the group clearly states what part of the article they are editing by including it in the header.

4. Integration: Does anything link up with something you or your team is working on? How can you help each other? There is not a lot of similarities between our groups and our proposed edits, mainly due to how different our species are (dogfish vs rat).

Do they link to other relevant pages in the text of their draft? Yes, there are lots of links to other relevant wiki articles scattered throughout the draft which is helpful.

5. General Edits: Maybe add some specific wording to what you would add to the draft in some cases. You guys mention what you want to add/change, but don't specifically write out the wording to it. This is something that I need to do with my proposed edits as well.

Peer Review #2

Hi Olivia,

I’m not super clear on what page you are editing/planning to edit (Squalidae, I think), but I still have some comments for the edits you’ve proposed for the intro and taxonomy section.

For both the intro edits where you’re planning to remove information (the “tend to have” and “known to be”), make sure you can back up your claim with a source - mainly for if you propose these changes on the talkpage of the page. My suggestion for the taxonomy section is to make sure there aren’t already wiki pages somewhere doing this or with similar information to that in which you’re hoping to add. I know I’m hoping to contribute information on molting and have had to look at several wiki pages to make sure I don’t repeat info that already exists on wikipedia.

Also just a question for your group, how much overlap is there between the squalidae page and the Spiny dogfish page? Have you decided if you're focusing on one over the other? (Asking since both are listed on your sandbox as up for being edited).

I think it’s really cool that there’s a lot of changes you want to make to better the page and I like how your group has divided up edits. Good luck with your future wikipedia work!

On The Nile (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review #3

Hi Olivia,

As I was reading through your edit, I wasn't quite sure what you were intending on editing or what you were editing. I know you were fixing specific grammatical things, such as removing "tend to have" and "known to be". It looks like you have a lot of editing that you want to do and a lot of sections that you want to edit, may I suggest just picking one section and completely editing that section. It looks like you have a good idea of what you want to edit and who is editing what, I also like how your external sources are peer reviewed and reliable. The breakdown of the taxonomy is interesting because we have learned how to do that in class and it will be great to put the skills that we learned in class to the test in wikipedia. The articles that you will be editing is squalidae and Spiny dogfish. I like the idea of your edits, but I don't see much correlation from your project to my project. Overall I really enjoyed reading your edits and gave me great ideas on how to structure my project. White367 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)