User talk:Hannahmorong/sandbox

Comments on Bibliography

Hannah: Good job. You might add the Koldehoff and Salmon references to your list. Also, you had the Koldehoff citation listed twice in the spreadsheet, so I have removed one. Njclum (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hannah, I just finished reading your sandbox on the cultural significance. I found it very interesting and I liked how you arranged the information into the positive and negatives. It also is very nice that you put a link with Zoonosis because that is something many people do not know. The biggest problem I see with your piece is there are no in text citations. If you paraphrase or summarize you need to give credit to that certain source. Your sources seem very reliable and your information is not presented with any bias or any of your own connections, it is very strait forward. I would just add some in text citations and look at a few grammar errors, and your piece will be perfect in no time! Awesome piece and I enjoyed reading it over for you. Evelynvpratt (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Rough Draft

Hannah: Very nice job. Good organization and well-cited. However, you have five sources in your bibliography and only two show up in your draft (you can have more than one source for a piece of information, FYI). Zoonosis is not a specific disease, but any disease that can be passed from animal to human. The link placement is good, but if you can list the specific disease and link to that, that's even better; otherwise you'll want to rephrase it. One thing you might consider adding to your "positive" side is that packrat middens have been very useful for research on archeology and paleoecology. Check out: Packrat Middens: The las 40,000 years of biotic change (Google Book).Njclum (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]