User talk:Natsatache/sandbox

Conservation biology of parasites

Peer review of rough draft

Hi Natalie! I think overall the information you provide is very concise and easy to follow. You explain your topic of depauerate as well as the reasons for it and the effect of it on the land well. I think one area of improvement would be your sentence structure. The length of the sentences is fine; however, the flow of some of your sentences is a bit choppy and makes it difficult to follow. Additionally, I think it's interesting that these depauerate areas still have an abundance of fossils. Would there be any way to elaborate on that or on another consequence these depauerate areas have on the ecosystem as a whole? I think the information you already have would be a good segway into that and since we need 3 sources maybe you could find another article just to elaborate on what you already rather than having to start a new concept on the topic. Again, you have good, easy to follow information already here, but I just think the sentence structure could use some improvement so that it flows and reads a bit smoother! Also, I think once you cite within your text it will be easier for readers who do want more information to be able to look into your sources. Vmkeam (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Hey Natalie! I think your article is well written but can use a little work. I think that it was written from an unbiased stand point, which is great for this type of article. I think that your sources are good but should you the library database to find a journal (I have to do this myself). I think you picked an interesting article as I am interesting in populations of species myself. All and all I think that with one more go around you will have a wonderful article, just watch out for some grammar mistaken. We can actually use the library database and help each other find some unbiased journals together if you would like.

Ashley Darby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darby509 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews. I intend on using the feedback that you have given me. As I have been writing I have been trying to implement your thoughts. I appreciate your feedback, you guys are awesome. It is really good to get the opinions of other because sometimes we are unable to see our own errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natsatache (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Feedback

Natalie, I think you have gotten a good start on your article here. You have some good ideas, mostly good writing clarity, and you have gotten a good start with finding articles that relate to your topic. I agree with your other referees that you do need to cite your sources within the body of your work, and that you need to find additional references. Also, as you continue working on this article, think about if adding sub-sections to this article would be a good way to stress the information you discuss in your article addition.

Also, some topics you discuss do need greater clarity. For example, is fossil prevalence greater in all types of depauperate ecosystems, or only in some types? Do all depauperate ecosystems contain fewer species and also smaller populations of those species?

Last, one topic that may add to your article addition is to discuss one or two examples of depauperate ecosystems. This could even be a sub-header (e.g., "Examples"). Rhirshorn (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]