User talk:AlyssaJordan/New sandbox

YOUR FEEDBACK RESPONSES

Taylor:

One thing that might work for you is to describe the 5 chordate not cephalochordate synapomorphies as still present in sharks.
Sharks are still chordates so they retain these synapomorphies as members of this group and you are describing what these structures look like. I would suggest removing the description on cephalochordates as that already exists somewhere else and just focusing on what these homologous structures now look like in sharks. "The five chordate synapomorphies in sharks"
Be careful with your tone. Remember to use neutral language, so the word "impeccable" is subjective here.
I like your proposed edits and now want to see citations from reputable sources. This is a high priority element.

Alyssa:

The proposed changes look good and should make the page easier to navigate and eliminate erroneous information
One suggestion I have is that you explain / clarify how shark denticles are different from other types of scales. Technically, a denticle/placoid scale is one of many scale types but these are just the most similar to teeth.---your textbook might be quite useful here.

Alexia:

Your plan seems quite sound and I also suggest the following:

1 Make sure you are not duplicating information already found here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shark_tooth
2 You can summarize info in the page I link above and direct readers there. OR you could potentially also add some of your information to that page instead.

Osquaesitor (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Shark Anatomists Group Sandbox

Note: Since your drafts for week 6 are not organized by who contributed each section, I will be giving overall feedback for each section.

I think your decision to make the integument section its own heading and have skin, ampullae of Lorenzini, and placoid scales as subheadings beneath it was great.Under the placoid scales section where you mention that "Fish scales" is the "main article", does that mean the draft you made for the placoid scales section is for the Fish Scales wikipedia page or you used information from the Fish Scales page to add material to the Shark Anatomy page? You do this under the Integument and Shark Teeth sections as well. Make sure you clarify whether these drafts are for your Shark Anatomy page or for the page you are linking under those sections.

If you are making changes to a section that is already on the Shark Anatomy page, I would suggest copy and pasting the original section into your sandbox and then putting your edited version underneath so we know whether you changed the original content or added something completely knew.

Content: Overall, the content is neutral and does not appear to have any bias.

Sources: The sources used consisted of journal articles that are reliable.

Structure: The organization of the sections was decent but it was unclear whether each section was a draft for the Shark Anatomy page or other related pages.

I know this group is editing parts of the Shark Anatomy page but it was not clear whether any other pages were being edited. Make sure to state which Wikipedia pages your drafts are for.

Based on their work from week 5, I think Taylor contributed the sections on synapomorphies and shark internal organs, Alyssa contributed the sections on the integument and muscles, and Alexia contributed the section on shark teeth. I had to scavenge around to find this information so I would recommend labelling each drafted section with who contributed the work.

I think there was a pretty even distribution of contribution from this group.

The draft from week 6 does not discuss what images you plan on contributing to the Shark Anatomy page.

Integration: This group added a section on the five cephalochordate synapomorphies which is also a section on my group's Wikipedia page. This group not only linked the five pages that discuss the different synapomorphies but they also described each characteristic. My group only linked the pages since each page describes the characteristics for us. You could consider just linking the pages instead of linking them and also describing them afterwards.

Copyedits: In the first paragraph under the Integument section, I am not sure if you meant to use the term "fibres" but I think it should be corrected to "fibers". This occurred multiple times in this section.

In that same section under the Integument heading, there were no citations so make sure to add citations for where you got your information from.

Under the Skin section, I would change, "Unlike other fish, sharks do not have scales, but rather denticles. Denticles are made of layers of dentine and a surface of enamel, they are V-shaped." (old), to

"Unlike other fish, sharks do not have scales, but rather denticles. Denticles are V-shaped and are made of layers of dentine and a surface of enamel." (new)Noname352 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review: Blake

Alyssa Jordan's draft "Integument" Suggestion: I think there is useful information here and you do a great job explaining. I think if I could make a change I would change the order in which you talk about the skin of sharks. I would keep the "Skin" paragraph in the same spot and switch the paragraphs "Ampullae of Lorenzi" and "Placcoid Scales". That way it follows in a better order. The rest looks great.

Taylor Stokes Draft This was easy to read and I liked that you had placed many links to other vocabulary if the reader had a question about material. From what I see all of the links work and go to the different pages. If there is anything to change it would be sentences such as "It was found on the Shark[46] page" I do not think you need to include where you found the information that you are giving as long as it is cited and referenced in text.

Alexia Sioda's draft: Everything looks great. If I could change one thing it would be the wording of the sentence "Sharks have a constant shedding of their teeth". I think you could change the wording a little to something like "Sharks shed their teeth often..."

Overall comments: These are strong drafts already just a couple grammatical or structure changes would help make it stronger.

Balakay29 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review:

Alyssa J.

- You did really well in citing sources for your different statements

- adding a citation to the first sentence of the skin section

- I do agree that the skin section should be made a sub-heading under the integument section

- your draft has a clear structure of what you are planning to rearrange and add to the page

Taylor S.

- Your draft is very easy to follow. I was just wondering where in the article this would be added to.

- I'm not sure if the first sentence would be appropriate. The synapomorphies didn't necessary evolve for the sharks, so possibly changing the wording could be helpful

Alexia

- Your section was very interesting to read!

- not very neutral in the first sentence

- reliable resources

- do you plan to add previous work from the teeth section to your work? IreneIIS (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews by Kalina

General Comments:

This group is editing the "Shark Anatomy" page.
It seems like everyone is contributing evenly.
In general, everyone seems to be doing a good job using neutral content.
Everyone seems to have found new reliable sources.
Alyssa is working on the "Integument" and "Muscles" sections. Taylor is working on "The Five Synapomorphies" and "Shark Internal Organs" sections. Alexia is working on the "Shark Teeth" section.
In regards to integration, my group and I are working on an article about hagfish, while you are working on an article about sharks. As such, I cannot really see anything that links up between our groups.

Alyssa Jordan:

I liked how you rearranged the "Integument" section. It well organized and easy to follow.
I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
I liked how you explained plans for editing.

Taylor Stokes:

I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
Your paragraphs are well organized and easy to follow.
I liked the image that you plan to add. I think you could maybe add more to the figure caption to better explain the image.
It would have been nice if you had somehow identified the edits you made to make them easier to locate.

Alexia Sodia:

For the sake of being as neutral as possible, I would recommend leaving out the part where you say that shark teeth are fascinating in the first sentence that is not crossed out.
I noticed that there was a spelling error in the last sentence of the last paragraph. I think you meant "and" instead of "ad."
Do you have any specific plans for images?

Whitefke (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Review: Loring

Your sandbox is set up well and nicely organized. The only issue is that I am having trouble figuring out what exactly your edits are without going back and forth from this sandbox to the page. It would be much easier to follow if there was some sort of differentiation between things copied over, and new edits. It would also be helpful to make it more clear what specific articles are being edited, because it seemed like you guys were working on quite a few different ones. Both the ‘Shark Internal Organs’ section and the ‘Shark teeth’ section describe a component of the shark as ‘fascinating’ which is objective and makes it seemed biased. There also are a few areas where the wording just seems a little awkward (for example, the skin section felt a little awkward to read), and I think the shark tooth section is missing a few commas that would make the sentences flow more easily. Overall, this is really good, and you guys have good proposed edits! Abbieloring (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Review : Ashley Press Your sandbox was well organized for me to read and understand your overall view. Also I would expand on why you think the sharks teeth are interesting to you and also the connection to other sources to show the overall function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)03:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)~~Ashleypress0511 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Katelyn Thompson

Neutral content
1. Alyssa
  1. I liked how you gave a summary of what you are trying to edit/add
  2. Really great organization and labeling!
2. Taylor
  1. Maybe more paragraphs broken so it is not clumped together. Although I see you put a lot of work into this and it really shows. Good job!
  2. Love the pic! Looks super cool. Maybe add more description to help readers understand why the image is needed for addition.
3. Alexia
  1. Super fascinating topic and I loved reading your portion. Definitely has some great information that I can use as a conversation starter in the future.
Reliable sources
1. Alyssa
  1. Loved that you placed the main article at the very beginning of your topic so it was easy for me to find it.
2. Taylor
  1. I would like if you put what the main article you are working on at the beginning like Alyssa and Alexia did to help readers be easily directed.
3. Alexia
  1. Loved that you placed the main article at the very beginning of your topic so it was easy for me to find it.
  2. I see that you typed something that may need citations. the sentence involves "35,000 teeth in a lifetime". I might have missed the citation but I do not see it.
4. Altogether, I loved how all of your references are together at the end and coordinated super well. Definitely organized to help readers find your sources.
Clear structure:
1. Is this draft well organized? Can you follow it easily?
  1. Yes; I think rearranging it to where your name is formatted first and by itself will help with stating who did what. Other than that, I can easily see who did what and what they edited/added.
2. What pages will be edited?
  1. Multiple articles incorporating shark anatomy will be edited.
3. Who will do the editing/adding of what topics/ pages?
  1. Alyssa will be working on the Integument and Muscles of shark anatomy. Taylor will be working on the five synapomorphies and internal organs of sharks. Alexia will be working on the teeth of sharks.
4. Does there seem to be an even distribution of contribution form all team members?
  1. I like how everyone is doing something different and seems to be invested in editing their contributions.
5. What sorts of contributions with regard to images are planned?
  1. I only see one image displaying the shark image for Taylor; other than that no images. Maybe more images showing the anatomy of their teeth or diagram of the five synapomorphies could help.
6. Do you see where this content might fit from the information provided?
  1. Any extra information is always appreciated. Therefore, I believe there in depth explanations on the topics they chose will fit from the information already provided.
Integration: Does anything link up with something you or your team is working on? How can you help each other?
1. Yes! The five synapomorphies does link up with what my team is working on. I honestly thing you explained/edited well. I would maybe explain more on how cephalochordates evolved to sharks.ThompskoNew (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knowl8dge's Peer Review

The citations look to be reliable and credited articles, although I am wondering why Wikipedia pages are being cited and numbered within the paragraphs (I could be wrong). There was an image added in the draft, but I suggest giving it a clearer description because I am not sure what it is showing. The amount of work being contributed appears to be fluid and evenly distributed among group members. The content seems to be written in a neutral tone, although I see a direct quotation in the "shark teeth" section in the last paragraph that I suggest editing.

Alyssa's peer review

The re-organization of the Integument section looks great. I can see some typos such as "fibres", and I suggest re-wording the sentence "Denticles are made of layers of dentine and a surface of enamel, they are V-shaped." to Denticles are made of V-shaped layers of dentine and a surface of enamel. Also, possible rewording of "These denticles on the skin allow for the shark to move almost effortlessly, move faster, and move quietly." could be These denticles on the skin allow for the shark to move quietly, swiftly, and almost effortlessly. The addition of the two types of muscles add great information to this section in the article, and I think some added images would be a good contribution to the integument section.

Taylor's peer review

The addition of the Five Synapomorphies contributes to the article really well. I suggest adding a picture here. I can suggest a little cleaning up of the paragraphs such as commas, fixing run-on sentences, and possibly some formal language (less casual and more informative). I think the revised Shark Internal Organs section is a great addition to the article. The citations in this article all lead to a Shark Wikipedia page, and I am confused by this. Are there more reliable sources for this information? Knowl8dge (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]