User talk:Hberna4
| This user is a student editor in Louisiana_State_University/Environmental_physiology_(Fall_2020) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Hberna4, 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) 19:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Article you are reviewing: Rainbow Trout
1. 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? The content and writing style are both clear and concise. Letting the reader know where the information came from is excellent!
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I only suggest adding where the information will be located in the article.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Again, adding the location in the article is important. This will allow the editors to let the author know if it flows in the location.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? There aren’t really any similarities, but there is a limit to both species’ abilities to perform their respective adaptations. There is a limit for rainbow trout’s swimming and limit to alpine marmot’s ability to survive in winter.
5. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it? The location is not given.
6. 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? No, this is a very thoroughly written article. The only correction I would suggest would be to the “water purification” topic. It writes “Rainbow trout is sometimes used as an indicator for water quality in water purification facilities.[114]” I think it would be grammatically correct to switch “is” with “are”.
7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, again, an excellent article.
8. 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." “ Seafood Watch ranks farmed rainbow as a "Best Choice" fish for human consumption.[50]” is a rather persuasive sentence, but ultimately, it is just stating a fact.
9. 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? Of the 144 sources, most are published in peer reviewed journals, such as G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, Evolution and Development, and North American Journal of Fisheries Management, as well as specific books on the topic.
10. 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. No, the sources are spread out quite well.
11. 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 didn’t find any! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDuncan123 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Article assignment[edit]
Hi. I noticed that you assigned yourself the Rainbow trout article to improve as part of your assignment. I wanted to let you know that this article is Featured Article, which means that it is among Wikipedia's best work. While there might be room to make a few small improvements to Featured Articles, they are going to be fairly complete. In addition, edits to them should conform fully with Wikipedia's Style Manual. Featured Articles are challenging to work on, especially as part of your your first major contribution to Wikipedia. For that reason, I strongly recommend that you pick a different article to work on - one that have scope for improvement. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)