User talk:Emmamitchell

This user is a student editor in The_George_Washington_University_/Your_Place_in_Nature__(Fall_2018_) .

Emmamitchell, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Emmamitchell! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Emmamitchell, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garret Hoff's Peer Review

Hi Emma!

I hope you are having a great Monday! I looked over your article and here are my main thoughts:

1. I think your overview is pretty straightforward and solid. The one thing I would recommend is that you tend use the construction "evolve a _____" which I feel can be easily confusing. I had go back and read it a second time to figure that out. I would change it and elaborate on what exactly you mean by evolving to the more complex thing.

2. I think you need to do a lot more on the original paper. What year did the paper come out? How did the professors decide to engage in this subject? How did they decide that this theory was viable? Those are some of the questions I think you should address. Your whole article does feel a little on the short side and I think that is because this section is not nearly as robust as it needs to be.

3. I think the Further research section is solid. Since I am supposed to be nitpicking it would be nice if the transition from talking about primates to anurans was a bit less abrupt.

All in all solid job! I definitely think you could expand a little bit more and flesh things about but a strong start! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedefinitivegeesh (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]