User talk:Ash Chollette
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2022) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Ash Chollette, 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) 20:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review by Carson Curtis
[edit]Article you are reviewing: Ash-Throated Fly Catcher
- 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?
I think this article does a great job of describing the species especially the taxonomy aspect of the page. The first sentence of the description subheading does a great job of clearly providing an overview of this species.
- What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
I would suggest the author add a few more images and maybe some information in the behavior section. I think this would help make the page look less bare and I also believe the behavior aspect of the species is more important than what is represented.
- What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
I think the most important thing the author could do to improve this page would be continue to add new information to the article because the information on the page currently is wonderful, I just think the page could use more.
- Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
I think the conservation and threat subheading would be a good piece of information to add to my article simply because the conservation of biology is important
- 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 putting it?
The sections are very neatly organized, and I somewhat agree with where they are adding their information to the article. I think the new information could also fall under the Behavior subsection just as easily.
- 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?
I think some of the sections in this article are underrepresented such as the behavior section, but I do not see any sections that are irrelevant or of little importance
- Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
I do not think the article tries to convince the reader to accept any particular point of view. The article seems to be very unbiased and factually based.
- 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."
There are no words or phrases that do not feel neutral. I read over the entire article and I did not see anything that struck me as biased or opinionated.
- 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?
Most of the statements in the article are connected to a reliable source. While a few sources are from websites, most of these sources are from academic papers and reliable scientific organizations.
- 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.
I did not see one source that was just extremely overused, I think for the most part this article is pretty balanced. I still think it just could use more information on this species.
- 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!
I did not see any statements that could not be backed by one of the references. Overall, I thought this was a pretty good article.
Note: For the new information being added into the article, I thought the paragraph was very good from an informational aspect. I think there could be a few adjustments grammar wise such as maybe taking out the part describing a nestling and changing “amount” to “amounts” in the first sentence. Overall I think you did a great job on this rough draft!