Feedback

Feedback from MJoe17

Rosamevel, I read over your Indochinese Tiger Sandbox article. For the most part, the article is very good. The structure of the article is clear and concise, the content is interesting and filling, and the references are useful. With that being said, I found a few minor mistakes that are mostly grammatical in nature. With many of these, they are simply my suggestions and in no way the "correct" way in communicating what you're trying to say.

First off, the sentence "The population of Indochinese tigers is estimated to be around 300 individuals existing in the wild," sounds a little awkward. Perhaps, "There are around 300 individuals existing in the wild currently,"? Maybe just work on rewording that sentence. Second, the sentence "The Indochinese tiger is categorized as Endangered in 2007" should be changed to "The Indochinese tiger was categorized as Endangered in 2007". Third, the sentence ending "British Colonel and hunter turned conservationist Jim Corbett," should be, in my opinion, "British Colonel and hunter turned conservationist, Jim Corbett." Fourth, the sentence beginning with, "In the early 1900s Corbett," should be "In the early 1900s, Corbett,". Fifth, the sentence containing "lowered sperm, count, infertility" needs to have the comma between "sperm" and "count" removed. Sixth, should the sentence ending with "broadleaf forest," be "broadleaf forests,"? Seventh, there needs to be a space after the period in the sentences ending and beginning as "April.After". Eighth, is it possible to reword the sentence "If poachers were to hunt the Indochinese tiger to the point of extinction, what would they turn to for a source of income?" to a statement rather than a question? I understand what you're trying to say with the sentence, I just feel like asking a question rather than stating the information, "they wouldn't be able to do anything else," makes it a little too informal. Ninth, when you reference the "small deer animal", I feel like it's unnecessary to say that it is a small deer. For those reading the article, if they know what the animal is, then they don't need to be told it's a small deer, and if they don't know what the animal is, then they can click the link and read on the article that it's a type of small deer. These were just some of the grammatical things I noticed, and like I said, most are probably optional, and completely up to you on making the changes.

Also, I noticed a few things with your in-text citations and links to other other Wikipedia articles. First, following the chart, would it be possible to link the "IUCN" to an external page or other article? You link to the IUCN's Endangered Species list, but not specifically to the IUCN at any point prior to that. I just feel that linking to the IUCN might help provide background. Second, I know you remarked on this in class, but I feel your "Threats" section needs citations. I assume you got the information from somewhere, just make sure that those citations end up in the article. Third, is it possible to link to the Yazana Corporation somehow? This would, again, help give some background. Fourth, could you link to the Israel Wikipedia article for similar reasons? Fifth, there seems to be a broken link in your reference list, just make sure you sort that one out before it goes live.

Other than these few and minor problems compared to the rest of the article, it's very well written and structured. You convey your message fluently and concisely. Very well done.MJoe17 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from jonathanhoffmann225

Hey Rose,

I began by reading the existing page on the Indochinese tiger and then read what I'm assuming is your edit of that page. I see your version as much better written. It conveys the information in a much more understandable form. For example, when discussing the characteristics of these tigers, the existing page mainly focuses on dimensions whereas you use a comparison to other tigers and describe the size accordingly as well as referencing particular dimensions. You continue to make difficult information more understandable throughout your article. In reading through the existing article the author mentioned several animals the tiger preys on but none of those animals are common in this area of the globe and thus can be difficult to understand what exactly these animals are. This is where I have to disagree with MJ; when discussing diet I feel that it is indeed necessary to mention that the muntjac is a small deer. Another thing I disagree with him on is comma placement in the sentence beginning with, "In the 1900's Corbett". He is correct that a comma can be placed there, but it is not required. The general rule is that if the preceding clause is 5 words or less a comma is optional but 6 or more words a comma is required. As a result it is entirely up to you if you would like to put a comma or not. I suggest reading over the section and see if it is appropriate to include a slight pause with that comma in context of the section.

Overall I think your article/addition is very well written and accomplishes the assignment brilliantly. You convey the necessary information in a concise and understandable fashion. Also worthy of note is your objective point of view.

From here I suggest reading through your work several times at varying intervals (read it on different days)so that you have fresh eyes and a clear mind. Look for grammatical mistakes MJ and I may have missed. Also try reading your work aloud to listen for flow within the wording.

Two thumbs up for you! Jonathanhoffmann225 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with ProveIt

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am having trouble using ProveIt for my references. Sometimes when I use it text surrounding an inserted reference is deleted.

I'm no expert on ProveIt, but I expect it will be nigh-impossible to pinpoint the error without more information. I looked at those of your edits whose summary said "(edited with ProveIt)", and they didn't seem to show the problem. It would probably be best if, when the issue occurs the next time, you save those problematic changes and provide the diff - if the problem can be replicated consistently, so much the better. Huon (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked the query as in progress; we're still waiting for the information Huon requested. If you don't provide it within a few days the query will expire. Gryllida (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from B.J.Carmichael

Rosamevel- Your revisions are strong. They connect information well and give the article flow. Both Jonathanhoffmann225 and MJoe17 have provided you with excellent feedback. My current concerns are as follows: 1) Indicate on the current article Talk Page what you will be adding to the article and that you have made some significant revisions in terms of improving readability. 2) There are several strong topic sentences, but they read like they need citations. For example, "The Indochinese tiger is a solitary animal. " is a sentence that needs citation. 3) Be sure to include the links that other editors have included. This includes the links to specific countries in the Lead section and specific organisms in the Diet section. Remember this is to be written like an encyclopedia and the details are important. Overall, an impressive job! B.J.Carmichael 04:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]