User:Noname352/sandbox

Week 11: (04/26-04/30)

Second Draft

*Underlined text are new edits.

Old: A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordate subphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates possess 5 synapomorphies, or primary characteristics, that all chordates have at some point during their larval or adulthood stages. These 5 synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail (see chordate for descriptions of each). The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum. Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes and are commonly found in warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide. With the presence of a notochord, adult amphioxus are able to swim and tolerate the tides of coastal environments, but they are most likely to be found within the sediment of these communities.

New: A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordate subphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called Amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates possess 5 synapomorphies, or primary characteristics, that all chordates have at some point during their larval or adulthood stages. These 5 synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail (see chordate for descriptions of each). The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum. Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes and are commonly found in warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide. With the presence of a notochord, adult amphioxus are able to swim and tolerate the tides of coastal environments, but they are most likely to be found within the sediment of these communities.

Old: Cephalochordates are segmented marine animals that possess elongated bodies containing a notochord that extends the length of the body from head to tail. They are only a few centimeters in length and due to their lack of a mineralized skeleton, their presence in the fossil record is minimal." There is a famous fossil shale from the Middle Cambrian, the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, which has yielded Pikaia fossils. Recently, a different cephalochordate fossil (Yunnanozoon) has been found in south China. It dates to the early Cambrian period, and is the earliest known fossil of the cephalochordate lineage.

New: Cephalochordates are segmented marine animals that possess elongated bodies containing a notochord that extends the length of the body from head to tail. They are only a few centimeters in length and due to their lack of a mineralized skeleton, their presence in the fossil record is minimal." A few fossils have been found such as the Burgess Shale of British Columbia which contained the fossils of Pikaia, and the Yunnanozoon fossil which also dates back to the Cambrian period.

Week 9: (04/12-04/16)

Response to peer reviews

- I need to capitalize and italicize "Amphioxus"

- Fix my lancelet article citation

- Add a section to the draft that discusses the image we plan on contributing.

- I might reincorporate the sentence that discusses fossils being found in old rocks predating vertebrates if I can find a citation to back it up.

- I plan on leaving the information about how the notochord is helpful for swimming in the introduction but I could also add more information about the notochord to the morphology section.

- I need to italicize Asymmetron Lucayanum since it is a scientific name.

- I might bold the content that I add to certain sections so it is easier for the reader to track my edits.

Week 8: (04/05-04/09)

Peer Reviews for Two Group Sandboxes

Peer review for Ornithologists Group Sandbox

Note: Right off the bat I noticed that each of you edited different articles but you did not state which article you were editing. Allie edited the Bird Anatomy page and Janet edited the Bird page. I only discovered this by clicking on Allie's link, "Axial skeleton", and Janet's link, "communication section".

Allie's Section (Axial Skeleton section from Bird Anatomy)

• Content: The content in this section is neutral in tone.
• Sources: The sources used in this section are reliable because they are journal articles.
• Structure:
  • This draft is well organized and I can clearly see what you changed about the original content. It was clear that you crossed out a section fo text that you didn't think fit the material or flow.
  • Allie is editing the Bird Anatomy page.
  • I feel like there was an even distribution of contribution because Allie added multiple citations to content that was not previous cited and she got rid of content she did not see fit.
  • There is an image of a bird with its vertebral column highlighted as well as an image of the pelvic skeleton of a bird which they plan on adding.
• Integration: Both this group and mine could benefit from drafting how we plan on referring to our planned images.
• Copyedits: Where you crossed out text in the synsacrum section, I would continue the sentence by explaining how the sacrum in birds is similar to the sacrum in mammals.

Janet's Section

• Content: The word "better" is used to describe the sound quality through the syrinx but should be avoided as it creates a biased tone.
• Sources: The source that was added is reliable because it is a journal article.
• Structure:
  • The draft is organized but I would suggest making a note that the draft is all completely new information you are adding to the Bird page and that you are not editing any old information.
  • Janet will be editing the Bird page.
  • There seems to be an even distribution of contribution because Janet added new information to the Bird page and also added a citation.
  • Janet plans on adding an image of trachea and larynx anatomy and an image of syrinx anatomy.
• Integration: Both this group and mine could benefit from drafting how we plan on referring to our planned images.
• Copyedits:
  • The first sentence in your section is confusing. I am not sure what you are trying to say so make sure you reread it and clarify what you are trying to say. ("Unlike other vertebrate birds have both a layrnx and syrinx, with the syrinx being exclusive to birds.")
  • Grammar edit
    • (Old) "This led to the syrinx being developed despite possessing a layrnx and a key feature that separates the bird from other vertebrate."
      • (New) This led to the syrinx being developed despite possessing a layrnx and a key feature that separates the bird from other vertebrates." (Make sure vertebrates is plural).

Peer review for Shark Anatomists Group Sandbox

Note: Since your drafts for week 6 are not organized by who contributed each section, I will be giving overall feedback for each section.

• I think your decision to make the integument section its own heading and have skin, ampullae of Lorenzini, and placoid scales as subheadings beneath it was great.
  • Under the placoid scales section where you mention that "Fish scales" is the "main article", does that mean the draft you made for the placoid scales section is for the Fish Scales wikipedia page or you used information from the Fish Scales page to add material to the Shark Anatomy page? You do this under the Integument and Shark Teeth sections as well. Make sure you clarify whether these drafts are for your Shark Anatomy page or for the page you are linking under those sections.
  • If you are making changes to a section that is already on the Shark Anatomy page, I would suggest copy and pasting the original section into your sandbox and then putting your edited version underneath so we know whether you changed the original content or added something completely knew.

• Content: Overall, the content is neutral and does not appear to have any bias.
• Sources: The sources used consisted of journal articles that are reliable.
• Structure:
  • The organization of the sections was decent but it was unclear whether each section was a draft for the Shark Anatomy page or other related pages.
  • I know this group is editing parts of the Shark Anatomy page but it was not clear whether any other pages were being edited. Make sure to state which Wikipedia pages your drafts are for.
  • Based on their work from week 5, I think Taylor contributed the sections on synapomorphies and shark internal organs, Alyssa contributed the sections on the integument and muscles, and Alexia contributed the section on shark teeth. I had to scavenge around to find this information so I would recommend labelling each drafted section with who contributed the work.
  • I think there was a pretty even distribution of contribution from this group.
  • The draft from week 6 does not discuss what images you plan on contributing to the Shark Anatomy page.
• Integration: This group added a section on the five cephalochordate synapomorphies which is also a section on my group's Wikipedia page. This group not only linked the five pages that discuss the different synapomorphies but they also described each characteristic. My group only linked the pages since each page describes the characteristics for us. You could consider just linking the pages instead of linking them and also describing them afterwards.
• Copyedits:
  • In the first paragraph under the Integument section, I am not sure if you meant to use the term "fibres" but I think it should be corrected to "fibers". This occurred multiple times in this section.
  • In that same section under the Integument heading, there were no citations so make sure to add citations for where you got your information from.
  • Under the Skin section, I would change,

"Unlike other fish, sharks do not have scales, but rather denticles. Denticles are made of layers of dentine and a surface of enamel, they are V-shaped." (old), to

"Unlike other fish, sharks do not have scales, but rather denticles. Denticles are V-shaped and are made of layers of dentine and a surface of enamel." (new)

Week 6: (03/22-03/26)

Draft of edits for Group Sandbox

My edits to the Cephalochordate page.

Old (Noah's Edit): A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordate subphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates possess 5 synapomorphies, or primary characteristics, that all chordates have at some point during their larval or adulthood stages. These 5 synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail (see chordate for descriptions of each). The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum. Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes and are commonly found in warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide.

New (1): A cephalochordate (from Greek: κεφαλή kephalé, "head" and χορδή khordé, "chord") is an animal in the chordate subphylum, Cephalochordata. They are commonly called amphioxus or lancelets. Cephalochordates possess 5 synapomorphies, or primary characteristics, that all chordates have at some point during their larval or adulthood stages. These 5 synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail (see chordate for descriptions of each). The fine structure of the cephalochordate notochord is best known for the Bahamas lancelet, Asymmetron lucayanum. Cephalochordates are represented in modern oceans by the Amphioxiformes and are commonly found in warm temperate and tropical seas worldwide. With the presence of a notochord, adult amphioxus are able to swim and tolerate the tides of coastal environments, but they are most likely to be found within the sediment of these communities.

Old (2): Characteristics of Cephalochordata include that they are segmented marine animals that possess elongated bodies with a notochord that extends the length of the body, extending from head to tail, persisting throughout the animal's life. The members of this subphylum are very small and have no hard parts, making their fossils difficult to find. Fossilized species have been found in very old rocks predating vertebrates. There is a famous fossil shale from the Middle Cambrian, the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, which has yielded Pikaia fossils. Recently, a different cephalochordate fossil (Yunnanozoon) has been found in south China. It dates to the early Cambrian period, and is the earliest known fossil of the cephalochordate lineage. Members of this lineage have numerous gill slits, and have separate sexes.

New (2): Cephalochordates are segmented marine animals that possess elongated bodies containing a notochord that extends the length of the body from head to tail. They are only a few centimeters in length and due to their lack of a mineralized skeleton, their presence in the fossil record is minimal." There is a famous fossil shale from the Middle Cambrian, the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, which has yielded Pikaia fossils. Recently, a different cephalochordate fossil (Yunnanozoon) has been found in south China. It dates to the early Cambrian period, and is the earliest known fossil of the cephalochordate lineage.

Week 5: (03/15-03/19)

Drafted edits for Group Assignment (Group Sandbox)

Topics:

• Morphology section
• Habitat/geographical location section
• Reproduction/mating section
• Evolution/ancestral origin section
• Copyedits

Articles/Other Sources:

• The lancelet - Proquest
• Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, and Evolution (Kenneth Kardong, 2019)
• A phylogeny of the hemichordates based on morphological features (C.B. Cameron)

Images or other media:

• A detailed morphological picture

Draft for talk page:

We suggest adding a morphological section that includes a labeled image of a cephalochordate.

• Sources:
  • The Lancelet - Proquest
  • A phylogeny of the hemichordates based on morphological features (C.B. Cameron)

We suggest adding an evolutionary/ancestral origin section.

• Sources:
  • A phylogeny of the hemichordates based on morphological features (C.B. Cameron)

Week 4: (03/08-03/12)

Assignment to Group Dissections

Organism 1: Cephalochordate

• I would like to edit this page because it is lacking a lot of information and has a lot of room for improvement in terms of copyedits and addition of information/sections.
  • I would suggest adding a section about the habitat in which cephalochordates are found. A section on their behavior could also be added.
  • I would add a labeled image showing the morphology of a cephalochordate as well as a section that talks about the morphology.

Organism 2: Squalus acanthias

• This page has much more information than the article on cephalochordates but still has room for improvements.
  • I would suggest adding more in the Description/Behavior section about the morphology of spiny dogfish.
  • It may be useful to add a section about their evolution.

Organism 3: Agnatha

• This article also has much more information that the article on cephalochordates but could use additional information within the sections that have already been made.
  • I think the addition of a labeled image showing the morphology of an Agnatha would be helpful for the reader.
  • I think some of the information within the lead about Agnatha morphology could be moved into a new section that only contains morphological information.

Week 3: Editing an article (03/01-03/05)

Discussion: Thinking about sources and plagiarism (Proper paraphrasing)

• Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information because they tend to be biased.
• You might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about the company because it is likely that their website is biased toward themselves. It would be helpful to find information from other sources that may have a different perception of the company.
• An example of a copyright violation would be if an editor includes the lyrics of a song onto a page that is talking about that particular song and there are copyright restrictions on that song. This might not be considered plagiarism. Plagiarism is when an editor includes information on their page and does not cite where they got that information.
• To avoid close paraphrasing or plagiarism, a good tip is to read the passage you are considering using information from, put the passage away, and write a summary of what you just read in your own words without looking at the passage.

Individual Assignment: Drafting my edits to a Wikipedia article

I will be editing the article called Cephalochordate.

• I will be copyediting the article by focusing on wording, grammar, and paraphrasing if I find any plagiarism.

1) I would change the 2^nd sentence of the lead to:

• "They are commonly referred to as amphioxus or lancelets."

2) I would change the 3^rd and 4^th sentences of the lead to:

• "Cephalochordates are part of the chordata phylum due to the presence of five specific synapomorphies present at some point in their larval and adulthood life stages. These synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, end-style, pharyngeal gill slits, and post-anal tail."

3) I would change the 1^st sentence of 2^nd paragraph of the lead to:

• "Cephalochordates are segmented marine animals that possess elongated bodies containing a notochord that extends the length of the body from head to tail.

4) The sentence that reads "The members of this subphylum are very small and have no hard parts, making their fossils difficult to find" is too closely paraphrased and I found the source where they found this information. The information is also not cited. I would use the source that I found and paraphrase the information into a new sentence:

• "They are only a few centimeters in length and due to the lack of a mineralized skeleton, their presence in the fossil record is minimal."

5) I would eliminate the sentence that reads "members of this lineage have numerous gill slits, and have separate sexes" because it does not flow with the information that precedes it.

Feedback: Discussion and Adding to an Article

• Great work here. All of it is very well organized and easy to read
• I really like your suggested edits. They were not only good suggestions but also easy for me to follow. The only additional suggestion I might make is to also copy the original here so that it is easy to compare.
• Remember to "sign" your work after submission. Even though this is your sandbox and you do not need to do it, get into the habit
• Remember that plagiarism is not just not including a citation, but making your wording and sentence structure too close to the original.
• Great workOsquaesitor (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Week 2: Evaluating an article (02/22-02/26)

Discussion: What's a Content Gap?

A content gap is when a page is lacking specific information about a topic.

• Leaves knowledge gaps

You could identify content gaps if the information does not flow clearly from one topic to another.

• Information could be vague, indicating a gap in content.

A content gap might arise if the author is does not have enough knowledge on the topic. Research in the field might also be lacking.

• The author could do more research on the topic to remedy this.

I think anyone can write on Wikipedia but you should be writing about appropriate topics and using credible primary sources to get your information from.

To be unbiased on Wikipedia, you would be using information from multiple different points of view, not just one.

Article Evaluation

I will be evaluating the article called Cephalochordate.

Quality

This article was rated as Start-Class in terms of quality which means it is not a high quality article and is lacking many components.

Lead Section

The lead section had a decent amount of detail but would benefit from some changes to the wording. Some sentences within the lead do not flow smoothly and could use better transitions. Multiple sentences are dedicated to talking about the notochord but none of the other four synapomorphies are explained in detail.

The author uses phrases such as "very small" and "hard parts" which are very vague and should include more detail.

Within the explanation of the five synapomorphies, the author should have listed pharyngeal gill slits instead of the pharynx. This should also be linked to a page about pharyngeal slits. Pharyngeal slits is linked in the feeding section but should be linked sooner such as in the lead section when it is first mentioned.

Structure/Content

There is a heading for the feeding of cephalochordates, but no other headings were included.

It would be helpful to add sections about their habitat type, where they are located in the world, their reproduction and mating, evolution, and morphology.

• Other commenters also mentioned that the article was lacking a section on the morphology of cephalochordates.

• Information about the morphology would help the reader understand the feeding process better.

• It might also be helpful to incorporate a labeled image within a morphology section to guide the reader to the body parts that are being discussed.

There are terms within the feeding section that should have links such as "buccal cavity" and "velum".

Tone

The article held a neutral tone and did not appear to have any biased content throughout.

Sourcing

Parts of the lead have been plagiarized and should be reworded as well as cited.

The second paragraph of the lead is lacking citations. The information within the second paragraph about where cephalochordate fossils have been found should have sources supporting where the author got the information.

The rest of the article appears to have good sourcing.

The reference list contains good sources such as articles from scientific journals but the reference list should be longer since a lot of information was not cited.