User talk:Maddydumont/sandbox

Comments on Bibliography

Maddie: There are some other papers that you could have pulled from the reference list (Babbit 1997 and 2006, Baber 2003, Brown, and Crombie). You have gathered the general information that you need; these other references would have provide more details on cover and pond characteristics.Njclum (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Outline

Maddie: Concise outline with relevant facts. Ideally these are organized how you expect to put them in your draft, and it is indicated what source they come from.Njclum (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Rough Draft

Maddie: Nice job on rough draft. I would remove "structured" from the first sentence as this refers to genetic structure. I would also replace "travel" with "found in" or something similar as the frogs are not actually traveling to Mississippi :). Also, does all of the information in the last part come from that one reference?Njclum (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

1. Is there a clear structure to the material, i.e., does the organization of the material make sense? Yes, you information was very clear to read and understand. 2. Is the information presented from a neutral point of view? When I was reading you material I thought you keep your information very neutral. 3. Are citations provided for all the information presented? Your citation are very clear. 4. Are the sources reliable? Yes, they are, the information you wrote seems to be reliable. 5. Are the citations complete and properly formatted? Yes, they are at the beginning, and clearly stated at the top. 6. Do you have any suggestions for improvement. I think you did very well. I think the information you have given us in your rough draft is a good amount of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaddyWade14 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)