User talk:Saraknowsthings
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2022) . |
Welcome
[edit]Hello, Saraknowsthings, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Saraknowsthings, 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) 20:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review by Carson Curtis
[edit]Article you are reviewing: Common Eland
- 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 main that that impressed me with this article was just how thorough the article is. The article covers a very broad range of information.
- What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
As far as improvements to the article, its really hard to say of any that come to mind. I guess the only improvement I would add is the incorporation of physiology but That is going to be added with this new paragraph addition. This would be an improvement simply because it is adding in another aspect.
- What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
The most important thing the author could do to improve this article would be to continue to add in new relative pieces of information as well as just keeping the page updated over time as there is a lot of information to keep up with.
- Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
There were many sections I found in this article that would be useful in my own article some of these sections were the diseases and parasites section along with the behavior and ecology section.
- 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?
The information they are adding makes sense to go under the thermoregulation subheading they are going to add and it definitely is in the right place under ecology and behavior.
- 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?
Each section seems to be very balanced with the others. All of the sections have a considerable length and contain a good amount of information. There were definitely no sections I found to be off topic or unnecessary.
- Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
The article does not draw conclusions or force the reader to accept certain points of view. The article seems to be very factual based and unbiased.
- 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."
There are not any phrases that do not feel neutral. The article presents a very factually based view of the Common Eland species.
- 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 of the information is connected to a reliable resource. It seems as if many of the resources are from encyclopedias, American journal articles, and other scientific papers.
- 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.
There does not seem to be one source that dominates this article. The article presents a wide variety of information through a very factual lens. I think it does a great job.
- 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 could not find any statements that I believed were not backed up by the sources that were displayed in the article. The author did a very thorough job of composing this article.
Notes: For the new informative paragraph being added, I thought the information was great and your wrote it in a great manner. The only corrections I saw to add or change would be to remove the “for” in the fourth sentence in the “this allows for them..” part of the sentence and the dewlap part. I am not sure what a dewlap is so that part threw me off in a way.