User talk:Marquette Mutchler
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Marquette Mutchler, 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) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]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 good job at describing how populations in high altitudes show in up regulation in genes.
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
I would recommend creating this as its own section under physiology because there currently isn't a section that fits the new information.
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
I would keep everything in one section instead of having two separate paragraphs. I also may not use the word "plastic" in the second part to describe the up-regulation and the sentence could be more concise.
Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
My article also does not have a good section for me to add information, so I may also have to edit the structure of the article.
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 user does not say where they are planning of adding the info, but I can see that it would go under Physiology, so yes it does make sense.
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?
Considering the info is a new addition to the layout of the page, the length seems necessary. It is all necessary and on topic.
Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
The edit does not try to convince readers and only presents facts.
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."
All the wording and phrasing is neutral.
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, if not all, of the statements made are connected with peer reviewed journal articles.
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 believe the first section of the edit should have a citation in order to give the statement some more backbone.
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!
The first two sentences do not have any citation provided. Based on the information provided, I think it is necessary to include a citation.
Overall, I think that your edit could use some revision to be more concise, but it is still good. Jtumin9 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Jtumin9