Tracha3
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Tracha3, 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) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
You have an overdue training assignment.
editPlease complete the assigned training modules. --SparrowGrrl (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review
editYour peer review has been completed :) Good luck! ♥ Emigracew (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC) 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 article is unbiased and has good information.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? a. This article needs to be restructured to make it more coherent.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? a. Restructuring the article and sentences.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? a.
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. It does make sense to put it where it is.
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 is relevant and it has necessary information.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? a. The article is not biased.
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. The article 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. They are connected to 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. a. Both sources are cited.
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. The sources are accessible and they do contain information. Emigracew (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)