User talk:Mmericle27/sandbox

Peer Edit

Pro- Great in depth knowledge of aquatic biomonitoring, just reading this rough draft gave me a good and clear understanding of the topic. The use of examples and the domino effect it has on the ecosystem was used well. I liked that you describe the “How to Process” of Aquatic biomonitoring, and gave a viewpoint of the scientist that do this job. Finally, the transition between the sentences and paragraph was good as well.

Con – The first two sentence have a bias outlook, for some people, aquatic biomonitoring is the last thing they think of (if ever). So, rephrasing it as “Aquatic Biomonitoring is a prevention tool that monitors the aquatic/marine life and their ecosystem, which covers 71% of the Earth’s surface. Seeing that it’s a large portion of the planet the management and prevention helps not only the ocean and body of water but the ecosystem of land as well” something to that effect. You're telling the reader this information as if you don’t have a benefit or consequence in writing this article. Links like this could further help the reader understand Aquatic Biomonitoring

Overall good job! --Dgirmay0634 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Feedback

Megan, you have done a good job researching this article topics, and your writing is mostly clear. As you continue to work on this article addition, be sure to reference all of the sources that you decide to include in the body of your work. Also, as Dogol points out, it would be helpful if you linked key words in your article addition to other Wikipedia articles.

I also suggest thinking more on how you will integrate your addition into the current Wikipedia article. Do you plan to add article sub-sections (e.g., "Abiotic Monitoring Methods")? If so, do you plan to move some of the current article information into those sub-sections?

Last, in your first paragraph, your sentences on evolution (2nd through 5th sentences in your first paragraph) seem out of place for this article - I suggest removing them. Rhirshorn (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to peer editing

I agree with both edits and will definitely add more sections work on the bias throughout my article. I will also add more citations through out my article. I also wanted to possibly add another paragraph to help with the flow as well. Thank you for the critiques as they were both extremely helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmericle27 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]