User:Blfaubion/sandbox

= Week 13 = Quick additions for Gnathostomata article: The entire fourth paragraph has no citations at all, and seems to be plagiarized. I copied and pasted the paragraph into google and found it was directly taken from this text book (https://cnx.org/contents/Mw1rkOh8@17.1:siK94-GI@1/Vertebrates). I will instead delete this paragraph and replace it with cited, paraphrased information. My edit: " Jaw development in vertebrates is likely a product of the supporting gill arches. This development would help push water into the mouth by the movement of the jaw, so that it would pass over the gills for gas exchange. The repetitive use of the newly formed jaw bones would eventually lead to the ability to bite in some gnathostomes." = Week 12 =

Illustrating my article and posting to talk pages
I already have found an image that is public domain for my media contributions to the article I am working on. After taking a look at some of the media contribution examples provided, I found they look quite similar to the image I found of a horses lower limb.

I have begun adding my proposals to the talk page on Odd toed Ungulates

This is one of my entries :

"Under the reproduction and development section I saw that there is a citation needed tag on the last sentence. I propose this slight change to the sentence structure as well as this source: "The young are nursed for a relatively long time, often into their second year, reaching sexual maturity around eight or ten years old. Perissodactyls are long-lived, with several species, such as rhinos, reaching an age of almost 50 years in captivity.[1]" --Blfaubion (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Ballenger, Liz; Myers, Phil. "Rhinocerotidae (rhinoceroses)". Animal Diversity Web. Retrieved 2021-03-27."Ballenger, Liz; Myers, Phil. "Rhinocerotidae (rhinoceroses)". Animal Diversity Web. Retrieved 2021-03-27.

Edited the article and added a link to the word mandible and keratin in the skull and teeth section to promote better understanding.

I also added this proposed edit to the talk page "Under the Reproduction and development section: "Newborn perissodactyls are precocial; meaning offspring are born already quite independent, young horses can begin to follow the mother after a few hours."

= Week 11 =

Expanding my Draft (#2)


I will insert image proposal into talk page under the Limbs section of the Odd-toed ungulates page. "The article discusses the ulnae and fibulae being reduced in horses so I feel a visual aid, such as this one, showing some of the lower leg bones will be beneficial."

Bold = my edits "The young are nursed for a relatively long time, often into their second year, reaching sexual maturity around eight or ten years old. Perissodactyls are long-lived, with several species, such as rhinos, reaching an age of almost 50 years in captivity. " (I found and added citation because the "citation needed" tag was used) I will propose this source on the talk page.

Went ahead and directly added a wiki link to the words "white rhino" under Lifestyle and Diet because I thought it would be useful for readers to go directly to that animal if they are curious about it.

Direct additions to the Limbs section:


 * "Ungulates have stances that require them to stand on the tips of their toes. Equine ungulates with only one digit or hoof have decreased mobility in their limb allows for faster running speeds and agility "
 * "Differences in limb structure and physiology between ungulates and other mammals can be seen in the shape of the humerus. For example, often shorter, thicker, bones belong to the largest and heaviest ungulates like the Rhinoceros.
 * Under the Reproduction and development section: "Newborn perissodactyls are precocial; meaning offspring are born already quite independent, young horses can begin to follow the mother after a few hours."

= Week 9 =

Planned implementations
- Begin to use this text to provide citations for the limbs, skull and teeth and gut sections of the Odd-toed ungulates page. A lot of these will have to be completely rewritten to avoid plagiarism but for now I am going to start with the limb section first.


 * add in text citations and more wiki links
 * "Ungulates have stances that require them to stand on the tips of their toes. Equine ungulates with only one digit or hoof have decreased mobility in their limb allows for faster running speeds and agility "
 * "Differences in limb structure and physiology between ungulates and other mammals can be seen in the shape of the humerus. For example, often shorter, thicker bones belong to the largest and heaviest ungulates like the Rhinoceros. " *** the citations didn't transfer over to the group sandbox when i copied the text from my own but they should be there this week!
 * Publish the image in my section of the hoof
 * cut the original paragraphs that are uncited in the limbs section and begin to formulate my own
 * added more wikilinks in my work but will continue to do so throughout

Some feedback responses.

 * Taylor's peer review had some great suggestions. She copy edited some of my work and suggested I link pages like Limbs, which I will do. However she also suggested some grammatical changes to just notes that I made for the sake of explanation and not anything I was actually going to publish on an article, so I will leave those as is.
 * Curtisag had some great recommendations for new sources that I am currently looking into.
 * Jack had some edits to help with the flow of my work which I have implemented
 * A lot of the other suggestions were to add in text citations, which were in my individual sandbox but unfortunately I did not catch that they did not paste properly into the group sandbox.

= Week 8 =

Draft of Bird anatomy peer review; Ornithologists Group Sandbox
- I love how you divided the axial and appendicular skeleton between the both of you to focus on. In the vertebral section there is a really good use of comparative language between species so people can really understand some similarities and differences.

- when listing the 5 sections of vertebrae, consider using numbers for the list instead of bullet points, and you could even have those numbers correspond with a labeled image of bird vertebral column so readers could see where each section is located.

- There is no non-neutral language

- all of the sources seem to be working

- In the syrinx subsection draft ; "In shorter trachea, the difference in loudness between a syrinx and larynx isn't much, but a longer trachea with a syrinx created louder sounds than a larynx." '''Maybe consider rewording this just a bit. I had to read it a few times to understand what you meant.'''

- your source looks very reliable for this section

- consider providing more detail under the pictures

Draft of Lamprey peer review:Lampreyologists Group Sandbox
- In the lamprey adaptations and functions section it would be interesting to see if you could include a graphic of the suction mechanisms or a picture of the ramp scientists are working on to help them get upstream.

- For the sake of maintaining neutral language, consider "Another important lamprey adaptation is its camouflage."

- Your sources for this section look good, and it is easy to understand and well-written!

- Other sources for the Organs and Synapomorphys sections also look reliable, just make sure the citations are linked properly below, it seems like the numbers might not be coinciding. I think its just wiki formatting error, and a quick fix.

- For the organs section, consider looking for a gross anatomy dissection of a lamprey to show an example of all of the organs you are talking about.

- For the synapomorphy section consider wikilinking Chordates

- Also dont forget to wikilink your sources[1] instead of the traditional way you have right now like this;  (pg 1050, Diogo, 2015)

= Week 6 =

Draft of edits:
After getting feedback took a look at a higher taxonomic order, Perissodactyla, instead of just looking at horse skeletal systems.


 * Focus on hooves and limbs of horses and other one toes ungulates instead of the entire skeletal system or body of one species
 * under the anatomy section of Odd-toed ungulates there are not a lot of sources and the information is not properly cited so I am going to work on the Limbs section and the Skull and teeth  section first
 * Note** I am having a really hard time finding sources for the information that isn't cited (Limbs, skull and teeth and Gut section) It isn't directly word for word plagiarized, so ill have to keep digging and see if I can find something similar, if not ill just have to delete the sections and begin to rewrite them because they are no good without citations.
 * Sources for Limb information:  Polly, Paul & Hall, Brian. (2007). Limbs in Mammalian Evolution. Fins into Limbs: Evolution, Development and Transformation. 245-268.

Proposed additions/edits:

 * "Ungulates have stances that require them to stand on the tips of their toes. Equine ungulates with only one digit or hoof have decreased mobility in their limb but this allows for faster running speeds and agility "
 * "Differences in limb structure and physiology between ungulates and other mammals can be seen in the shape of the humerus, often shorter, thicker bones of the limbs belong to the largest and heaviest ungulates like the Rhinoceros for example. " Figure 15.4 looks really good as a reference/comparison image for humerus types I just need to see if I can use it.***

Grammatical edits/ edits for clarity:

 * Under the Reproduction and development section: "Newborn perissodactyls are precocial; meaning offspring are born already quite independent, young horses can begin to follow the mother after a few hours."
 * The section on lifespan of Perissodactyls needs a citation; potentially this source

= Week 5 =

Things to add/improve:

 * Anatomy of the horses foot.jpg and add more sources ( there's only three total references for the article)
 * Add more visuals (pictures, diagrams) to help show what the skeletal system looks like. Right now the page is mostly just a list of bones and parts that do not link to any references or sources that people could use to find out more detail about a certain part of the skeletal system.
 * A photo of some gross horse anatomy would be interesting, perhaps in the ligaments section if I could find one
 * Addition of an evolution section
 * I could find resources that discuss the ancestry of horses and any vestigial features they once had/ the advantageous uses for features they retained

Rough Bibliography:

This book discusses abnormalities of horse skulls :


 * Anthony Paul Pease, Chapter 13 - The Equine Head, Editor(s): Donald E. Thrall,

Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology (Seventh Edition), W.B. Saunders,

2018, Pages 230-248, ISBN 9780323482479 ,

''' https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-48247-9.00025-5. ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323482479000255 ''')


 * N. C. Leone, J. L. Shupe, E. J. Gardner, E. A. Millar, A. E. Olson, E. C. Phillips, Hereditary multiple exostosis: A comparative human–equine–epidemiologic study, Journal of Heredity, Volume 78, Issue 3, May 1987, Pages 171–177, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110351

= Week 4 =


 * Choose three main Wikipedia pages that you might like to edit as part of your semester long project and list them in order of preference with your top choice first.

Three pages I want to edit


 * 1) Gnathostomata
 * 2) * I have been working on this article previously and I think it could use a lot of attention and additions.
 * 3) ** Some edits for the main page include general addition of information so that it can become a more structured and organized article. I would also fix the sources and the plagiarism.
 * 4) *** Three potential associated articles: Jawed vertebrates Buccal pump, semicircular canal
 * 5) Skeletal System Of the Horse
 * 6) * I have a general interest in horses and an interest in it's physical anatomy
 * 7) ** This article needs a lot of citations and sources. It has some good information but if it isn't sourced properly it's not credible. It could also use some more internal wikilinks.
 * 8) *** Three associated articles: Stay apparatus, Navicular disease, Splints
 * 9) Cyclostome
 * 10) * I am interested in this article because it is extremely sparse and brief
 * 11) ** Needs A LOT of expansion, visual aids, more sources and general structure
 * 12) *** Three associated articles: Cyclostomatida, Hagfish, Lamprey

= Week 3 =

Group Discussion: Plagiarism
What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? Reading a source carefully, and maybe taking notes, and then not looking at the source OR your notes and do your best to paraphrase what you read in your own words.
 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? Content is hardly ever from a primary source and things can be misinterpreted by these platforms while spreading their information.
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company? It is likely that the company will want to portray themselves in the best possible light, and potentially not be able to be completely unbiased in their information.
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? Plagiarism is not properly crediting someone else's work, while copyright violation may properly give credit to the original owner, yet the content is not available for public use.

Individual Assignment: Editing an Article (Gnathostomata)
I am will continue editing the Gnathostomata article. I found there were a lot of areas it could be improved upon last time.

I will mostly be focusing on grammatical and sentence structure improvements, as well as finding/ improving missing citations.


 * Grammar changes (bold is my edit)
 * In the second paragraph : "...paired appendages, that had been modified {In}to claspers in males and basal plates in females"
 * The first sentence of the Classification section, "The group, Gnathostomata is traditionally a superclass, broken into three top-level groupings:"  The "group" seemed too vague and I wanted to specify for clarity.
 * " forms close to (recent) Recent Chondrichthyes." this small error is pretty obvious so I just went ahead and edited it on the page.
 * Structure Changes
 * Add a section Characteristics of Gnathostomes over the first paragraph
 * Add sub section for Jaws before third paragraph
 * The entire fourth paragraph has no citations at all, and seems to be plagiarized. I copied and pasted the paragraph into google and found it was directly taken from this text book (https://cnx.org/contents/Mw1rkOh8@17.1:siK94-GI@1/Vertebrates).   I will instead delete this paragraph and replace it with cited, paraphrased information.  My edit: " Jaw development in vertebrates is likely a product of the supporting gill arches. This development would help push water into the mouth by the movement of the jaw, so that it would pass over the gills for gas exchange. The repetitive use of the newly formed jaw bones would eventually lead to the ability to bite in some gnathostomes."
 * I want to add a wiki link on the word "dentine" for context for readers. It in the table "Subgroups for Jawed Vertebrates" by Acanthodii



Feedback: Discussion and Adding to an Article

 * Well done making some changes on a page! I know this can be intimidating, but starting with a small edit is the perfect way to go.
 * Remember to "sign" your work after submission. Even though this is your sandbox and you do not need to do it, get into the habit as doing this in actual pages is highly encouraged (which you are already doing..so great work).
 * The organization of your page is excellent. Easy to read and follow and it is also very easy for me to see the potential effect of your changes because I can tell what was there before and how it will look after your changes.
 * Keep this up. I hope you are enjoying it. Osquaesitor (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

= Week 2 =

Article Evaluation
Gnathostomata

Assignment description:

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in this article seems to be quite relevant and informative. Nothing too out of place or distracting.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article does not take any sort of position. Only relaying information about Gnathostomata.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Not that I can see
 * Citations:
 * Are they properly formatted? A good amount of the citations are not properly formatted and are just links to articles.
 * Do the links work? The last two links do not work properly. The 16th citation goes go a NatGeo article that says "something went wrong" and the 17th citation just leads back to the article and not an actual source.
 * Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes the content in the sources matches what is stated in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Some of the sources used are not peer reviewed scientific journal articles, and are simply from independent websites and science media sites that could very well have their own biases.  However there are also journal articles used so it is a mix of reliable and perhaps not so reliable sources.
 * Are there any instances of plagiarism on the page? The content that is cited by the improperly linked citations could be considered plagiarism if these links are not fixed.  One cannot tell where the contributor got this content from and therefore could be considered plagiarism.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? There are some links that could be added to help understanding. Like Antiarchs, or placoderms. Placoderms isn't linked at first mention, rather the second. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to link a word when it is first discussed rather than later? An example image for a great white shark could be added, it is the only example on the chart provided without a visual aid.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page is pretty sparse for this article. There are some comments about broken links dating back to 2006. I found these unhelpful however because they do not even specify which specific link.  The most in depth conversation is over the evolution of the jaw but more information was needed.  There should be more headers that separate content as the article expands. As of right now, it is just a few large paragraphs about different things that should be sectioned off more clearly.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is considered a Start-class in terms of quality so it certainly needs more work. It is a part of a Wiki Project for Animals and features a to do list.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia uses a lot of the same language and vocab as we have in class and video lectures. The conversation on Wiki is a bit less structured and complete as when we talk about things in class but this is likely do to lack of contribution to the article or interest.

Group Discussion- "What makes a 'good' Wiki article?"
Content gaps are areas of an article where information may be missing. Some ways to identify them is if something doesn't make sense, or a link is missing. Content gaps may arise because people who are contributing may not have all of the information on a topic, or simply not be as interested in that area of research. Some ways to remedy these gaps would again to contribute to the article yourself, or address talk pages to inquire why this information was left out in the first place.

I don't think it matters who edits on Wikipedia. As long as an individual can cite the sources they are getting their info from and are making important/accurate contributions, their education level, or specialty does not matter.

To be unbiased on Wikipedia means to leave personal opinion and affiliations out of your editing work. Contributions should only be supported fact that can be cited and has reliable sources.

Talk page question/comment: (group post)
Brooke: On my Gnathostomata article the last two links in the citations are broken. I think it would be a good idea to point this out on the articles Talk page since it has yet to be brought to other's attention. We could say something like " Sources 16 and 17 in this article do not appear to be working properly. The link for 17 (Clack 2012) only links to the article and not an actual source, and source 16 leads to a broken National Geographic page. It would be good to find and add these original sources and fix these links."