User talk:Jmosbey17
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Central_Arkansas/Advanced_Evolution_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
Hello, Jmosbey17, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia 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. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review
Hey Justin! Great article! I really liked how concise you made your explanations. I did not have any major recommendations for you, but I did comment on a few things that you will find in your article. I really liked how you included links to terms, species, and rules in your article. This makes it easy for a reader to understand what you are discussing. Your history section is excellent! I liked how you correlated two studies to explain how the temperature-size rule was arrived at. This was very beneficial to me because I have been struggling with the history section in my article. After seeing your example I now know how I will deal with this. I did recommend that you might consider including pictures of the species you mention in your "Supporting Evidence" and "Exceptions to the rule" sections. I feel that this could further a readers understanding of the temperature-size rule by providing them with visuals of different sized organisms. I believe the only other comments I made were on possible formatting considerations. Great job on your article. It is very concise, nicely balanced, neutral, and not redundant. Also, very good use of references in your article. --Plumbob200 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Justin, This looks really good! I think that you do a great job of explaining the concept and I appreciated the history with Bergmann's rule and the examples both in support of and contrary to the temperature-size rule. One area that I think could use a little more detail is what distinguishes the temperature-size rule from Bergmann's rule. For example, why doesn't the temp-size rule apply to endotherms? Otherwise, I think it looks great! I made a note on the introduction for formatting, but the rest of the formatting looks good and the article is well organized. Lang1803 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The leading section is really good but you could give a little more information on the topic so that the following sections flow with the lead. The format looks great but instead of bulleted points in the last two sections, you should put it into sentence form. The information is very informative. There are a few sentences that you could reword and some grammatical errors to correct but overall it is a very well written and concise article. Jroberson4 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Jroberson4
Good article, Justin! Overall it was well written, and I only have a few suggestions that are mainly about formatting (I'll leave them as comments too). I don't think you need the date of the paper after every time you write an author's name - at the very least only do it the first time, and with the works cited links I'm not sure you need it at all. The "trade-off as an underlying mechanism" section is good but could be broken up with one or two subheadings (or at least some indenting), because at the moment it's a big block of text. The "Notes" section as a disclaimer about your supporting evidence section can just go within your supporting evidence section at the beginning, rather than having a whole separate block for it. That's it, great job! - Steven Lemp
Peer Review - Steven Lemp
Good article, Justin! Overall it was well written, and I only have a few suggestions that are mainly about formatting (I'll leave them as comments too). I don't think you need the date of the paper after every time you write an author's name - at the very least only do it the first time, and with the works cited links I'm not sure you need it at all. The "trade-off as an underlying mechanism" section is good but could be broken up with one or two subheadings (or at least some indenting), because at the moment it's a big block of text. The "Notes" section as a disclaimer about your supporting evidence section can just go within your supporting evidence section at the beginning, rather than having a whole separate block for it. That's it, great job! - Steven Lemp