User talk:AdlerD/Scarpocapsae

Hi AdlerD, here are some thoughts about your work so far:

• I noticed you didn't copy over the speciesbox into your sandbox (the box in the top right with the image and taxonomic information). This is fine--just be careful when moving your work to the article that you don't accidentally remove the speciesbox
• A tip for measurements: I like to use what's called the convert template when including temperatures, lengths, weights, areas, etc, as some people use SI and others (Americans!) don't. For scientific articles, you definitely want the SI measurement first. But for the temperature information in the lead, what you could do is go into edit mode, put your cursor where you want the temperature to be, click insert on the top tool bar and then "template", and then type "convert". Value would be 22-28, from unit would be C, and to unit would be F. Then click insert. That will display the temperature first in Celsius, then in Fahrenheit in parentheses. For all the units/conversions handled by the convert template, see Template:Convert
• I think you should add more links! spiracle, cuticle, symbiotic bacteria...put on your "non-expert glasses" and try to see this article as a lay person with no background knowledge of the subject. What terms would be unfamiliar to them? If a term is particularly unfamiliar or cannot be figured out by context clues, you should consider "glossing" it. So use the term normally, maybe even link to it, but also include a parenthetical explanation. For lots of good glossing, see Segnosaurus#History_of_discovery and notice all the terms in parentheses.
  • Related to the above, your prose sometimes strays a bit technical, like "The morphological changes associated with activation include opening of the mouth and anus, opening of the stoma, expansion of the pharyngeal bulb, and the initiation of pumping of the pharynx". This could be a very confusing sentence for someone with no background knowledge of the subject.
• Unclear what you mean here "Good quality nematodes..." as "good" is often a subjective value judgement. Is there another way you can say what you mean?
• There aren't any citations in the sections Habitat or Distribution--as an aside, I would consider combining those sections into one section, as both are quite short and the topics are obviously compatible.
• The order of the sections isn't quite typical for what I usually see for taxonomic groups. Consider looking at other high-quality articles to see how information might flow--Cestoda, Flatworm, or Tunicate might be good examples.

This is looking really good, though! I'd say your key takeaways from this feedback would be to read over your work and try to enhance clarity for non-experts. Let me know if you have questions! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Elysia (Wiki Ed) for the excellent suggestions, reducing jargon is certainly something this needs. I'm still learning how to switch between writing to my colleagues and writing to the general public. I think I'm getting better as I get more practice. I'll look at the example pages you referenced for additional ideas. AdlerD (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)