User talk:Realefu
| This user is a student editor in Boston_College/Deep_Sea_Biology_(Spring_2022) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Realefu, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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) 18:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi Fuka!
I see you added to the Habitats and adaptations section. First of all - I might reccomend splitting this heading into two subcatogories? I like the adaptations section, and I think a lot of them do relate to habitat. That said, I think this section as is doesn't really highlight the direct connection enough to combine the two. I would probably take what you have a make a super robust adaptations section and either not add the habitats heading or write a new piece for that.
I liked the hyperlinks on some of the words, that was a great inclusion. I would maybe try and link out "sacrafical tag" if possible since that was a concept we touched on in class but might be unknown to the average reader. In terms of formatting, I would get rid of the bolding as that is not often used in Wiki articles. I am not sure what an OMZ is, so I would probably spell that out.
In total - you have a beautfiul writing style, it is very visual and creative in terms of word choice and phrasing. That said, I am not sure this lends itself best to an encylopedia type of read. Some lines like "from the watchful eyes below" are great a paint a cool picture for the reader, but in a more scientific piece like this might be better replaced by something as simple as "predators below." I really did enjoy reading your piece but I think some scientific writing does better with super plain and clear word choice. Even things like "suffocating depths" might be confusing in this type of an article.
That said, this was a great add on that used some really solid sources. I think your team might have to do a little work to make this flow, as of now it is pretty clear different people wrote different sections. However, the information included looks great so you have all the hard work done!