User talk:Thomas997
| This user is a student editor in California_State_University_Sacramento/ENVS_10H_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Thomas997, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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) 20:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review - Ethan Fiorini
[edit]Hi Thomas,
I was assigned to review your article and analyze it's lead section, structure, balance, neutrality, and reliability of sources.
Beginning with the lead section, It is clear what the article will be about, renewable energy in California. Due to this article already existing, much of the lead and sections in the sandbox article follow suit with the existing article, with the exception of two new sections titled "preferred or dominantly used sources of renewable energy" and "Future of Renewable energy use in California." This allows for further expansion or edits on the already presented information. It does seem that your article is in a rough draft phase and the introductory statement is an excellent start!
Next, the article's structure. The structure is clear and concise while also having the potential of being further expanded upon. Since there is not much written in each section it is hard to determine exactly what would be discussed or expanded upon, but given the state of the article being in a rough draft, the sections are clearly listed and the structure is there in an outline form. The next step is the harder step and putting the research into words, which many students may be at in their articles.
Next is the articles balance. Given the preexisting information, the article is already quite balanced with information on power generation types. And the addition of the two new sections make sense and do not hinder the article whatsoever. If anything it begins to clarify all the renewable energy types and their usage, as well as expanding on the future predictions of renewable energy in California. While there is not much written, the potential is there for formulating the information into words and editing the existing information if needed.
The Neutrality of the outline is good. Although much is not written in the sandbox article, what is written in the into statement remains neutral and does not convince the reader think along one side or another, a good explanation of facts.
Finally the sources. They are a good selection of sources with various .org and .gov sites, making them reliable and credible. Finding more sources would only help in gathering information and also textbooks could be used in gathering information.
All in all a good start with a sense of direction, given that this is a rough draft. It is really the hardest part to put all the information down into your own words. I feel a lot of students may be at this point as well but with more time and more research, i'm sure the edits and additions would very welcomed on Wikipedia. Keep it up!
EthanFio (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thomas997 Thank you so much! You provided such interesting feedback. It was really helpful. I need to add more structure, you are right. Your feedback is very critically and that is why it is so helpful. Even though you state you are not an expert it is hard to say this because you do sound like one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunette2k16 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Instructor Feedback
[edit]You've added some content to Renewable energy in California, here are some suggestions to make sure you get a good grade:
- You're still light on content, and I'm sure there is a lot more on this topic that you can bring in, possibly even create sub-sections on technology, policy, etc. Should we talk about this?
- need to find more sources and cite them
- linking to other wikipedia pages is needed, e.g. for Bell Laboratories
- Check for spelling and grammar
--Julianfulton (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC) ok, great I will continue to add more content to the article today; and I will fix the grammar/spelling errors, as well as add links to other articles. I also appreciate the tips on the subsections. Thomas997 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)