User talk:Shawnbrookins/sandbox

Group Gameplan Feedback:

General: -You are going to want to start organizing your sandbox so that things are easier to find and the space is easier for you and everyone else to navigate. Here is an example of how you can do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ayersmm/sandbox you are encouraged to do this here and in all individual sandboxes as well. - Be sure to identify that this is your group sandbox location where common drafting will take place -I like that you try to use parallel structure in the content of your group sandbox. It makes it easier to navigate and understand. However, I would keep an eye out on your source formatting. It is not all the same. -In General: Remember that you are a team. Each of you is responsible for taking the lead on your independent sections, but then you compile them as a team in this sandbox. That means that you do more than just copy and paste things here. Here in this space you will: -Use parallel structure in the content of your group sandbox. You mostly do that...see above. -Help each other improve your individual contributions. This includes the general content that lives in the sandbox, but also the content that then goes "live". For example, I saw another group use this space to edit the talk posts they wanted to make.

- As you move on, you will quickly begin to see a need/desire to add images. Make sure that you have completed 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

-Please SHOW in addition to TELL. Do not just list sources. Ask yourself: "How are other Wikipedians supposed to assess that these are good sources?" If you don't put the sources in context, how can that happen? What sorts of relevant information do they contain that will help you add needed content (also, what is that needed content?)? This becomes particularly critical when you post to the talk pages. Effective writers guide their readers rather than ask them to divine what the author's meaning and intention is. -It would be useful to know which team member is taking the lead on what section -I highly recommend that individual group members compile information on the sections they are taking a lead on in their own Sandboxes first and THEN transfer them here for group edits. I will point out a section where you could all have assisted one another in my specific comments below:

Specific section comments:

-Although the cheek pouches and teeth sections generate the "context" around the sources, the aortic arch does not. Therefore this sections needs a bit more development to "show" more of what you want to do. This is lacking in the sandbox, but actually very clear in the talk post. Copy and paste that to your gameplan. Remember, this is your roadmap to edits, so it is good to put it all in one place. - Again, It would be useful to know which team member is taking the lead on what section and those individuals should be posting to talk pages.Osquaesitor (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review/Edit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriennescarcella (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Shawn- I feel like this is a very well organized and detailed section! I had to read it multiple times just to try and find some form of construcive criticism! You did a great job at addressing multiple parts of the cheek pouch, from musclacture, vasculature, and nerves. Your format is easy to follow and flows nicely. Maybe you could state what the different branches of the nerves are??? Adriennescarcella (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Adrienne[reply]

-Rat Tail- The organization of this section is very nice and transitions well. Maybe there could be more info on the mechanism of thermoregulation for the tail. Also, a picture of the anatomy of the tail would be nice here. The second paragraph about the findings of the study, I feel, needs to be less about that study and more about the overal info about the — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriennescarcella (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Riley-

The study data about Vitamin A seems a little random and not needed. I think a picture would be awesome or a link to the human heart since it is so similar. The structural mapping you gave was very good and easy to follow. I could actually picture most of it in my head while reading it! Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriennescarcella (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Dalen-

It may be helpful to explain what the PI, PE, and HSP bands are. Great idea about using dissection pictures!!! I think that would be great! Why can the incissors grow without a root? Maybe adding a mechanism here would be helpful??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriennescarcella (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you all have done a lot of research and put effort into this! Your info looks really good!!! Hope this helps! Adriennescarcella (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Adrienne[reply]

-Shawn-

It is quite clear that you've done a lot of research on your topic animal. Your sources seem really great! However, there almost seems like there might be too much detail. For example, there is a lot of detail on the surrounding muscles nerves of the cheek pouch, which might make it difficult for the potential "7th grader" that will be reading about the rat cheek pouch for a school project or something. However, I think the information that you have on the rat tail is very interesting and easy to follow! Overall, very thorough first draft, it's obvious you've spent a lot of time on it. Nordliam (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Riley-

This sounds very interesting, especially comparing it to humans. Your sources seem very reliable and all of your text sounded neutral. Neha in my group is also potentially working on the cardiovascular system of our project organism, the microbat, maybe you could consult with her to compare your results? Just a suggestion. Overall, I'm really interested to see how your research turns out. Great first draft!Nordliam (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Dalen-

Your draft sounds very interesting to me. However, does the rat also have canines, premolars and molars? If so, are they all similar in structure and composition to the incisors? From what you wrote in your draft, it sounds as if the incisors are more prominent than their canines (assuming they have them). If this is the case, then you could potentially look at the evolutionary advantage of why that is? Finally, you might need to find a few more reliable sources. It sounds like a very interesting topic. Nordliam (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback From Tyler

Good work all, your edit is high quality. Just a few suggestions:

Cheek Pouch: This edit is of good quality and is very clear, which I think will benefit the non-biologist that is reading the article. Adding some more links to other wikipedia articles could be useful. I do not think you need to discuss the places at which dissections/studies took place beyond providing a clear, compact summary and linking the source for more of encylopedia writing. Overall good work.

Rat tail: This is a well written section. Easy to follow with clear information. I seems like the first paragraph could use a source for the claims of the three studied functions of the rodent tail. i think that the language could be altered to shorten the piece a little. Linking to wiki pages could also be useful. The discussion of the "degloving" technique was very clear.

Aortic Arch-I like this piece it is very clear and easy to follow, especially the first paragraph. If you are adding this to the Rat page a photo of an aortic arch could be helpful. Good discussion of the usefulness of studying the anatomy of the rat heart.

Teeth- I was wondering if there is an adaptive reason that rats have this hypselodont teeth? Also I was left wanting on explanations on the HSB's as i didn't see anything on them on the Tooth page. Good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:E80:5A3C:BC5F:D662:25B6:2A4C (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Peer Reviews:

-Read these comments carefully and compare them to the feedback posted for you on Sakai on the content of your first draft under Resources and Wikipedia Assignments Feedback. There is a folder there for your team. I also encourage you to take pictures of pocket gophers and rats in the museum to clarify that cheeck pouch page.Osquaesitor (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]