User talk:Petrikyv/sandbox

Group Feedback from Osquaesitor:

General: - As you know, part of this draft required that you make plans for the images you wanted to use. Some of that is alluded to here, but not very much and your peer reviewers noted that as well. Make sure that you respond to this in your next assignment. Also, complete or go back to the student training and you can also go here for a very comprehensive how-to and resources on contributing to Wikimedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

Specific section comments: -The turtles from previous years have been saved and I have a set up in my lab for removing the flesh from skeletons. You may be able to start that process this week to get the skeletons cleaned and have individual vertebrae to photograph. -Use the footnotes in-text citation format in your text. This is a draft, so the section on breathing musculature should be following that format. Also, see my comment above about the old turtles. It may be quite useful for you to look at old dissections to see how you can preserve the muscles you want to see. --Although it is just fine that two of you will collaborate on a shared topic, the distribution of work and focus on information by each individual should be more explicit. In some ways, both summaries read in a VERY similar fashion and have redundant information. I will be looking for you to address this issue in your peer reviews in the coming week. Osquaesitor (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

PEER REVIEWS:

Good choice in what to focus on regarding what should be added when it comes to the neck and its anatomical functions. There is definitely a good amount of sources used. The reason for no fusion of the vertebrae and what functions that serve is nicely explained. Comparing the skeleton to other species regarding the rib cage puts the anatomy into perspective. Questions and edits to consider: What kind of complications does this bring to the turtle with the attachment of the rib-cage? How are the other functions of the body effected by this? Can you look at this through an evolutionary stand point? The last sentence regarding the protection of the shell could be reworded. Maybe start thinking about what ways the turtles use their necks in order to go into the dissection with more of idea of what you’re looking to get out of it and what muscles should be focused on. MountainFoot (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Yelena: Good clear idea of what you will look for to photograph during your dissection. Also, I appreciate your clear focus on the difference between the two groups and how they retract their necks. Just be sure to closely link morphology to movement type in a simpler way, easier for the general audience to understand. Wikipedia should remain academic... to a point. Otherwise, it is intended "for the masses". Finally, I would suggest finding a few more sources to back up your claims, and avoid seeming too much like you paraphrased a single source. (see comments for Jackie, as well) Jackie: I'm realizing now that you and Yelena are studying the same topic. I'm sure y'all have already figured this out, but make sure you are clear together on which article you will contribute to and exactly what you will focus on. Where you focused on ecological and teleological differences between Pleurodira and Cryptodira, Yelena focused on morphological differences. You could certainly mash these together to great effect, but it would behoove y'all to make sure it doesn't become too bogged down in messy details if you do. Heather: Good focus on a unique morphological quirk of turtles (the shell). It makes for something I think wikipedia readers would want to read! That being said, make sure you are beginning to answer this interesting question at this ponit in time. You have the sources (evidently) so make sure you are beginning to synthesize them into a useful passage! EvenBadScientistsCanObserve (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources are not properly cited in some drafts. Although they are listed, there is no actual reference within the body of the draft. They are credible sources though.

For the most part, the proposed idea is very neutral.

Most of the contributions are well structured. For Heather's portion, there is no real structure to this draft. It feels more like a list of facts than a flowing paragraph. Try adding links to certain words in your draft that allows a deeper understanding for topics. It sounded more like you were trying to tell your group what you were planning on doing rather than creating a draft of the actual article. As long as this gets formatted correctly and an actual draft is formed, then I believe combined with your sources, you can make a good contribution. Overall, the content from all group members seems pretty even.

There are no plans for images as far as I can see.

LuteMJS (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of Drafts

You all have really great ideas and are off to a great start on your drafts! I would specifically recommend focusing on making sure that your paragraphs are succinct and don't contain any extraneous details and monitoring your use if phrases that take away from the "authority" of the information you are presenting. If you are presenting facts, then state them as such and don't back track from what you have found. Theambivert20 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Yelena: The content you have so far is good and is neutral. I like how you incorporated the plan to use the what you will/ anticipated to find from your dissection. Jackie: I see a clear direction from your draft. You have valuable information that you can add to the page for neck retraction. I see that both you and Yelena’s direction for improvement is really similar so perhaps woven the information together or collaborate to improve. Heather: Interesting approach to look at the challenges and exploring on how they were able to survive despite the challenges would be a unique addition to the article. NyQuildrops (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Turtle Peer Review and Copy Edit

The chosen contents are neutral, and the resources are reliable. The structure is well organized, but it offers more explanations than actual structure of a rough draft. The subtitles and resource portions are well organized, and it is easy to tell who will be contributing to which portions. There were no spelling or grammatical errors I could find. There was only one mention of proposed images you were going to include.

Neck retraction: The information is well done to explain the functions and integrated processes. The two sections could be divided more by specific topic. Yelena’s portion could be directed to form and function and Jackie’s could be more evolutionary. The subjects covered seem to lead to those subtopics already.

Respiration: The speculative ideas in the turtles’ respiration sound very intriguing. A possible association to evolutionary differences to discuss is their partial aquatic lifestyle. Their respiration may be contrasted to other aquatic organisms as well as terrestrial, possibly mammalian. (Nsabo (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC))