User talk:Vhensey
Hello!
[edit]Hey Vanessa. I am really tired.Yu.ste (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Vhensey, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
|
Hi Vhensey!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Vhensey, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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 complete the student training, 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) 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
P3 Peer Review
[edit]Great job on your first draft! It was interesting and clear. There were a few terms I think you could explain more to make it encyclopedia friendly: -Pineal gland -Phase response curve -Melanopsin
In “internal regulators” in the original wikipedia article, I think you could explain the following terms to make it more encyclopedia friendly: -Negative relation -Gene transcription
The internal pathways and mechanisms section was clear, but I think a diagram may make it even better. Do you know of any publication that you cited that has a diagram? If so, I think that would be a great addition, but if not I wouldn’t create one.
The link you’ve included for depressive symptoms is red and does not include anything.
In the “downstream effects” section, you may want to explain what downstream effects are in the beginning of the section (it was a little unclear).
Emma.marie.p (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
P3 Peer Review - by Madison Youngblom
[edit](I'm going to take this review section by section)
- I think what you have decided to add to the introduction makes sense and doesn't need to be expanded on any further
- I also agree that the "demonstrated effects" section is good as-is
- I think you might be going into too much detail in the "Internal Pathways and Mechanisms" section: While the mechanism of light absorption in the mammalian eye is pertinent to the subject, I don't know that it necessarily belongs in this article. Is there an article you could link to? If not I would suggest condensing and simplifying this information because its pretty complex/scientific and detracts from the central subject of the page
- I don't think that the language in the "internal regulators" section is too complex, its a complicated subject but there are plenty of links that should help a reader understand
Overall I would say that you've done the best you can as far as simplification goes ("Internal pathways and mechanisms" is the only section I think gets too technical) and so the next step would be to just add some "fluff" in between all the science jargon to try to thin it out a little; possibly adding some colloquial descriptions of the more important scientific terms if you think it would help. Good organization and great sources!
Let me know if you have any questions.Youngblom.m (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 2
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Light effects on circadian rhythm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depressive. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)