User talk:Kaelengolden/sandbox

Article evaluation

I read an article titled “Behavioral Ecology” that had a focus on the influences of natural selection and evolution. The article stayed on topic throughout. However, I was distracted by the way the author jumped between topics within the subject. One thing that may be out of date is the descriptions of specific animals and their behaviors. Behaviors change everyday and some behaviors may not be the same as described in the article. However, this did not take away from the messages. The article could have been improved with a decrease in the number of topics addressed. A decrease in the number of topics could have allowed for more in-depth explanations. Some of the paragraphs left me with unanswered questions and this could be a good solution.

The article was unbiased. Addressing the causes for a behavior can sometimes be subjective. Considering this, I didn’t think there were any sides taken throughout the article. I don’t believe there were any viewpoints that were overrepresented, but I do think there were some that were underrepresented. It seemed several viewpoints were too brief and needed to be explained further to expand the readers understanding. Many broad topics mentioned were only small paragraphs, which left me looking for more information.

There were a lot of sources included in the article. I tried a couple links and they worked. The sources I found seemed to relate and support some of the article’s contents. I did scan the rest of the sources and some of the titles seemed a little off topic. Most of the facts within the article were accompanied by a valid citation. However, there were some places in the article where citations were needed that another user recognized. All of the sources appeared to be neutral. The sources always seemed to be referenced after a neutral statement. I was not able to review all of the sources, so this helped with my confidence in them.

On the talk page, there were some users with concerns about edits and the following of copyright policies. There were also concerns about the author not using enough references and the lack of their inclusion within the article. The author included replies addressing the concerns by either fixing the problem or defending his or her methods. There were a couple users that had issues with the lead and its simplicity. They discussed how the inclusions of some parts were distracting and unnecessary. Lastly, there were several suggestions for the improvement of wording. These were some comments included about the article. This article is rated Start-Class and is a part of WikiProject Animals and WikiProject Ecology. Wikipedia discussed the topic with less focus than the way we have in class. I felt Wikipedia lacked depth in some areas. Overall, I have expresses some of my concerns, but I felt the article made some good points and was informative.

Possible paper topics

Topic choice 1: Protein Evolution

I will explore what influences the proteins that are transcribed and how this has changed over time. I will also consider the process and time involved with the evolution of proteins.

Topic choice 2: Evolutionary Genetics

What interactions dictate what portions of genes are translated? How do these interactions impact concepts like mutations and gene stability?

Topic choice 3: Enzyme Evolution

How has the amount of and structure of enzymes changed over time? What are some negative effects that are involved with the changing of enzymatic activity?

Topic choice 4: Cell Biology and Evolution

How have cells evolved similarly or differently? How does the evolution of one cell affect that of another?

Talk-Phoebe McGowin

A lead section that is easy to understand

1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? After reading just the lead, it was very clear and obvious on what the article would be about. Very interesting! 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? After reading the entire article, the lead gave a brief overview about what the entire article would be about. It hit the key important topics. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead doesn't give too much to any certain part of the article. It is more of an overview of the big pictures within the article. I thought all of the sections were weighted evenly. 4. Is anything missing? I didn't think that anything was missing at all. There was tons of very good, interesting information! 5. Is anything redundant? I didn't think that anything was too redundant, most of the information was very clear and not over used.

A clear structure

1. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? The sections are very well organized and in a sensible order. 2. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I think the way you ordered it made the most sense. No other way would make more sense.

Balanced coverage

1. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? I thought that every section was very equal in length and that they were all important to the overall article. 2. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? None of the sections within the article seem unnecessary. All of the sections are very important to the overall article. 3. Is anything off-topic? Nothing seemed off-topic to me while reading the full article. Everything added seems to be important to the entirety of the article. 4. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? The article represents all of the perspectives in the published literature. 5. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I do not think there were any viewpoints left out or missing. All of the important points are in this article. Great job! 6. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article is very non-biased. There is nothing that is trying to convince the reader to feel or believe a certain way.

Neutral content

1. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author because it is a very factual article, there is not much to sway or get someone to believe. 2. 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 article as a whole has great phrases and words, all of it flows and belongs. Nothing seemed to be weird or not fitting. 3. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." The article does no make claims based on people or groups, which is good! 4. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article focuses on both positive and negative aspects of the topic, there are no more weighted aspects covered.

Reliable sources

1. 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? Most of the statements are connected to a reliable source or another wiki page explaining the content. 2. 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. None of the sources are used too much, all of the statements make sense to where they are linked too, and most of the articles seem very reliable and balanced. 3. 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! I did not think that any other statements should be linked or cited that were not. Great job!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebemcgowin (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Pheobe! I appreciate your feedback. -Kaelen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaelengolden (talk • contribs) 05:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Alexia Lewis

A lead section that is easy to understand 1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? -Yes, the lead does satisfy that I know the importance of the topic. You explained both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium models well. 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? -Yes, the lead does reflect the most important information in this article. The lead explains both models and their correlation to evolution. Both of the models are the most important information. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? -I don't think the lead gives more weight to certain parts of the article over others. It seems to give weight to the important parts of the article. 4. Is anything missing? -As far as I can tell, the only thing that is missing right now is the stub at the beginning of the article. Other than the stub, it looks like you have everything that was required for the article. 5. Is anything redundant? -The only portion of the article may be a bit redundant is the lead and the conclusion. But I know that the conclusion is supposed to be somewhat repeat what was said in the lead and summarize the material stated within the article. Maybe you could reword the conclusion somewhat so that it won't seem redundant. A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? -Yes, you did a good job of having the sections flow in an organized order. The lead gave insight into what to expect for the rest of the article. The studies and conclusion followed the lead and flowed well. 7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? -I do not think that they would make more sense presented in another way. You could possibly make the punctuated gradualism conclusion a portion of the actual conclusion instead of making it two separate sections. Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? -Yes, each section's length is equal to its importance to the article's subject. I think that the sections about the experiments/hypotheses could be a little shorter, but altogether the length of each section is good. 9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? -Yes, I do not think that two conclusions are necessary. I think that the two sections could be combined into one. 10. Is anything off-topic? -No, I do not think that anything is off-topic. Everything/section seems to flow well with the topic of the article as well as the material stated. 11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? -Yes, it does reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature. 12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? -From what I have read, I do not think that there are any significant viewpoints left out. 13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -I do not think that the article tries to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. The article does however draw conclusions about the studies that were conducted and states that phyletic gradualism punctuated equilibrium are relevant when when considering species evolution.

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? -I am not sure that there is a perspective that could be guessed from this article. 15. 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." -No. The article is neutral as a whole. There isn't really a position to take/point of view so everything is pretty much straight to the point as facts are presented. 16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." -There are not any claims made on behalf of unnamed groups or people. 17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. -I do not think that that the article focuses too much on a negative or positive side of the information.

Reliable sources 18. 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? -Yes, most statements in the article are connected to a reliable source, but there were a few statements that lacked a citation or source so that may be something that can be added to your article. 19. 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. -Some of the statements are attributed to the same source a few times throughout the article, but for the most part the sources are fairly balanced. 20. 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! -Yes, there are a few unsourced statements. Just cite those few statements and then your paper should be good to go !

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aclewis3 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC) 

Alexis, I appreciate your feedback. I have now included the stub at the beginning of the article. I have revised my conclusion after considering some of your points about redundancy. I have also omitted some parts stating how important the two hypotheses are when considering punctuated gradualism. Lastly, I have considered a few statements that may have not been sourced. Thank you again for your feedback! -Kaelen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaelengolden (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on suitability as an article

Hi Kaelengolden, there are currently a number of discussions about the suitability or otherwise of articles being created by the course you are participating in. I wanted to drop you a note to avoid future problems when publishing this material.

• The structure of your draft is, at the moment, far too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Our articles do not have general introductions, don't make a structured argument, and don't terminate in conclusions. They merely summarize existing information in the briefest form available, and use internal links (wikilinks) to make connections to information already present. Please have a look at, e.g., punctuated equilibrium and note how the structure differs from your draft.
• Following from that, Wikipedia articles avoid duplication of material whenever possible; again that is what internal wikilinks are for. You spend two thirds of the article in repeating material that is already present at punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism (although some of your sources may be new). Again, that is fine for a classic university/school "essay"; it is not a suitable format for an encyclopedia article. You should rather launch directly into "Punctuated gradualism refers to [...]. It is related to punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism in such and such a way." Then that's those two topics out of the way and suitable linked, and you can concentrate on the purported topic of the article.
• Third, there is already a stub Punctuated gradualism. It is a good idea to build upon that stub, rather than replace it wholesale with new content; this avoids ticking off other editors who have already invested time in the previous version, and allows you to make use of material already present.

You have a number of good references in your material that would be a definite improvement on what we have as an article at the moment (that's frankly sourced quite badly...), so I encourage you to go ahead and improve on that. But please keep the above points in mind. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Elmidae, I appreciate the feedback. I have worked to make my article less like an essay and more like the current articles you suggested. I have also taken out all of what I believed to be duplicate material. Lastly, I have added my material to the existing material in a way that I believe compliments it, along with some improvements to the citing. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Thank you! -Kaelen