User talk:Khk17

Welcome!

Hello, Khk17, 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) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ayana’s Peer Review- Matriphagy

In the second paragraph of the introduction, you mentioned how the specifics of matriphagy varied among different species - I like that you all explained the process well it one species - but it would be worth in to briefly mention mechanic differences in other species as well

For stats of offspring who engage in matriphagy rather than ones that don't, it would be helpful to cite a source there so we can know where that information is coming from, or just c cite sources by sentence instead of at the end of the paragraph

In the fourth paragraph of the intro, you mentioned how matriphagy was an extreme case compared to other forms of care - Maybe briefly describe these other forms of care so readers can tell what those stark differences are Overall clear lead, can tell the importance, and it summarizes info in the coming sections

For etymology - Maybe this section doesn't have to be its own, but it can go along with the definition of matriphagy that you all have provided

In Amaurobius ferox, you mentioned the eggs are nutritious - what is the criteria for that, what defines nutrition?

For stegodyphus lineatus - Maybe this species should come first in its description since there was emphasis placed on this species in the introduction

In pseudoscorpions - it is mentioned that matriphagy in this species can prevent cannibalism - it would be helpful to explain a little more as to why that is the case

Having the benefits and costs section helps to keep that neutral point of view, balancing with positive and negative aspects

In the other forms of parental care section - it's good to include these sections, but these sections are longer than the sections related to your topic, which could shift what people think the importance of the article is. Maybe try to shorten these sections with just brief descriptions so they don't take away from the main point of the article Also for this section, grouping the spiders and scorpions together into the separate section could make things more clear when comparing species - like species together

Overall good, clear structures. Ideas follow each other in a sensible fashion

I think the "cultural significance" section offers a unique perspective- helps bring in a neutral point of view

For the "List of species that engage in matriphagy" section - I think this section should be moved to before any of the behavioral descriptions start - just so this can be the first thing a reader sees and they will have an idea of what is about to be discussed Overall neutral perspective for the article

Good variation of sources, but some sections are only based on information from one source - like in the earwig section, for example, which could cause an unequal balance - try to find other sources to back up those points you are making in the article

I think this is a very good job in editing the article from what it once was, the main suggestions I may is just to balance the main point of the article more heavily than the other supplemental points, and to just have a variation of sources in each section - which could also be attributed to my own article as well

Yanabey29 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stegodyphus mimosarum moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Stegodyphus mimosarum, does not have enough sources and information as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Natureium (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stegodyphus mimosarum

Hello, Khk17. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stegodyphus mimosarum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)