User talk:Leeza.decheubel/sandbox

Your article is very informative and covers the topic very well. It explains your topic well and includes nonbiased information. Your citations are also great and placed well throughout the article . The only change I would make would be to add more information on exactly what the functional groups are maybe list them out as well. Otherwise, your article is great! Mmericle27 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edit

Pro – The overall concept and understanding of functional group (ecology) are well written and provides a good synopsis of the concept. The further understanding and information on the article is good as well, providing information on the types of functional groups gives additional help to understanding the article and informs the reader as well. The article was written with a neutral perspective and only provided the information needed so good job.

Con – The article would be better if you added links to the original articles (if possible) through a link in your reference section. Also, links to other wiki pages in your draft would help (the user) clarify the other concepts talked about in the draft (an example would be linking the word Ecology to the wiki page on Ecology). Lastly, your lead section should be on functional group, so maybe switch the first and second paragraph. Then through transitional phase/words, you could go and talk about the ecosystem and its relation to functional groups. This would further help your synopsis on the concept. Links like this could further help the reader understand Functional Groups

Overall good job! --Dgirmay0634 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Feedback

Leeza, good job researching your topic, focusing on key point relative to your topic in your draft, and referencing sources in the body of your work. I agree with other reviewers than a cleaner organization would help the reader to focus on the key points in your article addition. For example, I agree that moving the information in your second paragraph to the leader section would be helpful, although perhaps be more concise in this leader paragraph. For the rest of your article addition, think about if 2 or so sub-headers would be good ways to organize this information more clearly.

Second, I agree with others that making links between key topics in your article addition and other Wikipedia articles would be helpful (e.g., "plant functional types," "guilds"). Third, as you continue to work on this article addition, I suggest working to make your writing even more clear and concise. How can you best communicate the main points in this article addition, as concisely as possible? For example, in the first sentence of your second paragraph, perhaps change to "a functional group is a set of organisms in a community that share characteristics. (** side note - can you give us an example or two here? Perhaps this could be a sub-header, "Examples") Another example per writing clarity is your last sentence, second paragraph - perhaps change to "Functional groups occupy key positions within food chains, which means XX in terms of their relationships with other organism in the environment" (is this what you mean here?).

Last, your writing clarity does need a bit more work. E.g, the second, third, and fourth sentences in your second paragraph are a little confusing. Rhirshorn (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Peer Reviews

To improve my Wikipedia, I plan to make a few adjustments to my work before submitting the final copy. In doing so, I will first add some more depth to what a functional group actually is. It has been brought to my attention that it could use a more descriptive meaning of the term. Secondly, I will add links to certain definitions within my post, such as ecosystem, abiotic, and biotic. Lastly, I will focus on the overall organization when editing and adding information. I will switch my first and second paragraph, furthermore adding subtitles to smaller sections. This will be especially useful when I provide examples of a functional group. Thanks to all who reviewed my article! Leeza.decheubel (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]