User talk:AudreyMMull
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, AudreyMMull, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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) 15:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Audrey!
[edit]Hi Audrey, I am a member of IAH209 with you. Like you I am a science major; I am a junior studying nutritional sciences. Scrolling through our class list I noticed you were one of the first people that completed the user page portion of our week2 assignment. I look forward to reading more of your work on Wikipedia throughout the semester. --Fungrach (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
[edit]Hi, AudreyMMull -- welcome to Wikipedia! As Ian mentioned, the Teahouse is a great resource for new editors. But did you know that Wikipedia also has an extensive help library for common questions? Of course, if you run into a question or problem, you're always welcome to get in touch with me either by email or on my talk page. Happy editing! Fraudoktorkatie (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey!
[edit]Hi Audrey! Better late than never I suppose! I had a hard time understanding how to use Wikipedia at first, but I think I'm getting the hang of it now! I am in IAH209 as well and looking forward to learning how to look at the world around me in a new light. I hope you have a great semester and I look forward to seeing what your edited wiki page looks like in the end!
Sheaalix (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi Audrey,
I really enjoyed reading your rough draft, especially since I already had kind of an interest in this topic. First of all, I really liked the way you outlined the entire process of examining a crime scene. It was really detailed and it helps the reader to definitely understand it better if they don’t know what is exactly done in this process. I also thought it was a good idea to list exactly what is supposed to be listed on a “label” or “tag” on the evidence. Overall I thought it was really well-researched and you made great choices on what exactly to add to the article.
There were a couple suggestions that I might have, but honestly you don't really NEED them with how much good information you already have. One thing would be to maybe provide simple pictures of the “sketches” of the crime scene. It may be confusing to some beginners on this topic about how they actually look, and it might be helpful for these readers to picture it better. Another suggestion would be that you could expand on why only those certain types of certain individuals can handle the evidence. It may be evident to some people but maybe not all people. Besides those and a couple simple missing words (the, a, an, etc.) I thought that your rough draft was really good! It looks like you're on your way to making major improvements to your article.
Slatere4 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi Audrey!
While reading your draft, I really appreciated your clear and easy to follow structure and layout. I think it really adds to the article as a whole. I was also impressed by your ability to be neutral and remain unbiased throughout. It stays consistent with Wikipedia’s pillar in creating articles with a neutral tone and avoid advocacy or debate. This strengthens the validity of the article and allows readers to have information available to them instead of opinionated statements that circulate the web.
Also, your article was very thorough and substantial that it gave the article a more well rounded approach and touched many bases an interested reader would like to learn about.
Some suggestions I have is implementing more photographs to demonstrate the crucial information you added. I feel this would add to your article by further illustrating your points and create a better picture for readers. Also, I believe there are some topics in your article like crime scene reconstruction that could use more development and therefore could focus more time there as well.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading your article. I thought it was easy to follow and understand. I also definitely gained some great insight in the process! Britogissel (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)britogissel
Moving to mainspace
[edit]I noticed that you moved your sandbox to "AudreyMMull/sandbox"; this isn't how you move your content into the main article space. What you need to do is to merge your content into the existing crime scene article, integrating what you wrote with what's there already, keeping what's good, but replacing content with your own additions where you've improved on what was there previously. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)