User talk:OdellZ17
| This user is a student editor in Clackamas_Community_College/English_Composition_(Summer_2018) . |
OdellZ17, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi OdellZ17! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, OdellZ17, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hello OdellZ17. Good job on your article! I liked the details you provided and feel more informed on some of the origins of Visible Light Astronomy. Below are some feedback items on my reading and referencing your article. I attempted to be as constructive as my knowledge will allow. The Introduction doesn't feel like an intro. It goes into too much detail that is not reflected consistently in below sections. When I read through, I felt like I was popping from one wiki page to another with a summary but not necessarily connected. Suggestion of removing definitions and placing them in a technical section below. Some reference to the below areas would be preferred in the intro to allow congruence. Currently the sections read disjointed from each other. The language is inconsistent shifting between a personal tone and an academic tone such as using the word His. The language does not seem consistent with the other related articles your article is attached too. They have a more academic feel. The History section oscillates between these two tones especially. This section would read smoother if broken into paragraphs and could benefit from a small intro of Lippershey and where visible light astronomy first started. It appears to start mid-history without a future/present section. There appears to be chronological stages throughout it, which may give good guideline for paragraphs. There are also a lot of ABOUT statements within the article regarding technical specs. Words like AROUND and ALMOST will sometimes work, but I recommend using them sparingly. Statements like UP TO or AT LEAST give more technical appropriateness for this kind of text in my opinion. Next to specific dates and exact figures too many of these makes the article seem less credible. You may want to rephrase these passages to give the piece more solidarity and strength. The section Commonly observed objects would benefit from a one to sentence intro before jumping into the list. I also believe this section would be better after the Ambient brightness section and a nice closing thought for the article itself like a call to action to go find these things. Another section that may add to the effectiveness of the article might be how visible light astronomy is used in modern times. That may fit well in your history section bringing the timeline to today (or close to it). This plus breaking out the technical aspect from the intro would, in my opinion, make the article look whole and thorough Lastly, in References, the Drake link and Sharratt link both go back to the article page currently. Hooknatasha (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, I will definitely take it into consideration! OdellZ17 (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi! I have a quick note - this article needs more sourcing to back up claims - additions should not be unsourced. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)