User talk:Ryan Thron/sandbox

PEER REVIEW BY AKASH CHANDRA

The paper should maybe include a picture of what wheel bugs are and maybe talk about the picture of that specific wheel bug as to how they developed the wheel on top of their backs and give some historical significance or biological information regarding it. The first part of the essay talks about when wheel bugs are active and what there preferred diet is and talks about the certain habitats where wheel bugs are found which is good and informative. The part where you talk about the wheel bugs making the clicking sound can maybe be talked about in more depth as to the different types of behaviors these bugs can possess in achieving mates and should be labeled as the behavioral significance. The part that you talk about "characteristics" of wheel bugs and discuss that the fore wings give a very fluid and mobility should be left in a different category maybe called "morphological significance". The part where you talk about the ecological significance is good however, it is a little too in depth and a little redundant. The section that you talk about reproduction starts out well when you talk about where the female eggs are found. I would add how the wheel bugs mate and the types of mechanisms they use to get this done in relation to behavior and sexual selection. I think that there should be a section on the ecological significance and the types of factors the environment may have on these wheel bugs including humans and other species that live in the ecosystem. The references that you state are elaborate and look correct in relation to what you have stated. Akashevolution (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC):

Draft Feedback

Ryan, you have done an excellent job researching this topic, and your writing is very clear and well organized. Your references also look great, although it looks like the formatting does need to be cleaned up a little bit. For example, for web sources, do provide the link to the website. And, for journal articles, you do want to provide the journal name, author name, volume, etc., but you do not need to provide the name of the database (e.g., ScienceDirect).

The biggest suggestion, I would give you, however, is to remove the quotations from your article addition, and instead to put all of this information into your own words. In Wikipedia, you really do not want to use quotations, since this represents a copyright issue. Along similar lines, do cite your references in the body of your work by using the citation tool, so that they show up as a linked number. Conversely, do not refer to the authors so abundantly in your text. For example, in the Characteristics section, 2nd paragraph, do not say "According to Bill Thomas..." but instead say "Wheel bugs...." (then cite your reference using the citation tool). Of course, again, do not directly quote this material.

But, overall, this looks great! Do be sure to remove all of those quotations, though. Rhirshorn (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Professor Hirshorn. I will certainly add links to web sources and adjust the formatting of my article citations over the course of the next week. Additionally, I will eliminate direct quotes from my draft and shall incorporate paraphrases in their place. Finally, I will utilize the citation tool appropriately in order to provide readers with links to the place of sources within my bibliography.

Ryan Thron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)