User talk:Rmarin8
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Rmarin8, 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) 14:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155 Your name: Carrie Richmond
Article you are reviewing: Pond loach
1. 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?
The article provides a lot of information on the species that is helpful for Wikipedia's audience. Some of the information is questionable in terms of its reliability and a lot of the information is lacking references.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
I would suggest that the author review the claims of the article and find sources that verify these claims. The author could also add information that is supported by references or add references to existing information in the article. These changes would improve the article drastically because this is the article's main weak point. These changes would make the article itself a more reliable source.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
Adding references to support information and claims in the article is the most important thing that could strengthen this article. There are some claims that seem unnecessary as well that could be removed like the claim about pond loaches being friendly with goldfish.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
The "range" section could be applied to my Rhim gazelle article as well as the "in the aquarium" section. A "range" section could be used to expand on the environment the Rhim gazelle species inhabits and which parts of Africa they live in. Upon further development, the Rhim gazelle article could have an "in captivity" section if the species doesn't go extinct like the "in the aquarium" section.
5. 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 article's sections are not organized very well. The introduction and the description section are set up well, but the In the Aquarium section should be renamed and divided up. The range section should not be so late in the article since that should be one of the first topics covered. The information the author is adding to the article is going in one of the stronger sections and makes sense where it is being inserted. It also strengthens a claim with references and develops more on a topic introduced in this section without steering away from the focus on the species.
6. 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?
The sections are obviously disorganized and the In the Aquarium section includes the bulk of the information on the species and is written poorly. If this section were reorganized into other sections then the article would have sections with more appropriate lengths and each section would contribute a topic specific collection of information on the subject of the article. The part in the In the Aquarium section about pond loaches being peaceful and friendly with goldfish is off-topic and should be removed. The statement "you should check up on your pond loach if they don't show up for roll call one day" also needs to be removed.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
The entire second paragraph of the In the Aquarium section is written so weirdly that it sounds like it is trying to convince the reader of something, but the paragraph is instructing the reader on aquarium tank care for this species. The paragraph should be rewritten in a fashion better suited for an informative article on the Pond loach as a species. The rest of the In the Aquarium section includes sentences that sound like the article is trying to convince the reader that Pond loaches are a necessary part of any aquarium tank and are extremely useful for that purpose.
8. 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."
The In the Aquarium section includes verbiage that isn't entirely neutral. Words and phrases like: "this makes the pond loach a great choice", " Purchasers often presume when buying tropical freshwater fish that all species will thrive in the (typical for home freshwater aquarium installations) 76–82 °F (24–28 °C) range; this presumption is incorrect in the case of the pond loach", and "They are extremely peaceful". These sentences make the section seem like an advertisement for pond loaches for aquariums.
9. 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 statements in the article do not include a source at all. The information that actually does include sources is questionable still. Some of the references are from journals with one being from a news article and one from an untrustworthy website that is used to cite the bulk of the In the Aquarium section. There are only four sources and a lot of information. The author's sources for the addition they are making to the article are trustworthy and distributed well throughout the information they're providing.
10. 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.
The entire In the Aquarium section seems to come from one source and since this is the largest section it makes the article incredibly unbalanced. The section is more of an aquarium guide than it is informative on the species. This section disrupts the fluidity of the article and needs to be redone. All of the sections that are cited only rely on two sources per section. These sections are so small that if more information was added to develop on these sections new sources could be used that strengthen the article and the preexisting source information.
11. 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 As Food section, In the Aquarium section, and parts of the Description section are lacking sources for the statements provided. The citations are not done correctly throughout the article and many claims present "citation needed" links.