User talk:L$utigers
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, L$utigers, 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)
Peer review[edit]
Overall, the added information is good. Some of the information could be cut down and put into simpler terms. The use of information is done well and backs up the points made. One thing that I think would be beneficial to change is removing the two sections talking about how the Oryx deals with food shortages as the information taken from your two resources seems to primarily deal with water shortages. 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? The added information fits well and adds good info to the article. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I feel cutting down on some of the information and explaining it a little simpler would be a good change. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Cutting down on some of the information is the most important change. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? No 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 putng it? The information makes sense there. 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? Overall, it seemed to be an appropriate length. Cutting down on some of the information could be beneficial. 7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The article does not seem to try and draw conclusions. 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." The words were 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? They are from 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. The information is well balanced between the two sources. 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! There are no unsourced statements. Thidal1 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC) thidal1