User talk:Arodr1334
| This user is a student editor in Florida_International_University/Dynamic_Tensions_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Arodr1334, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia 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. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review for Sex Verification in Sports[edit]
A lead section that is easy to understand - Yes. A clear structure - Very clear, you demonstrated the parts that you wanted to change and italicized them. Very clear and organized. Balanced coverage - You added a section that highlighted the new regulations as of 11/01/2018. Neutral content - It seems very neutral to me, very scientific. Reliable sources - Your sources are from the IAAF and then another one from the Journal of Medical Ethics.
Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? - I am beginning to hear about this more and more in the news. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? - Yes Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? - I think that this is a very interesting topic, ethically it has a lot to offer.
Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Your order was just fine.
Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Nothing off topic, and everything ties in pretty well. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I would not be able to tell if there are things missing.
Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Definitely not, you presented the information in a clear and precise manner.
Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No.
Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No.
Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. It is well-balanced.
Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, reliable sources.
Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. There are two sources.
Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! I'm not sure about this.
First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? This topic is very controversially and prejudiced against female athletes to some extent. I like the scientific nature of the article and what defines sex testing.
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would not suggest anything.
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? No changes, maybe other sources. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! The article was very good!