User talk:77lemonpie/OrnothologistsL01 sandbox

PEER RESPONSES FEEDBACK
Osquaesitor (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of your plans look good.
 * See our conversation about the synrix edits. Those should probably happen on this page and then work on organizing the Bird Anatomy page a bit (change heading level on Circulatory

Peer review for Ornithologists Group Sandbox

Note: Right off the bat I noticed that each of you edited different articles but you did not state which article you were editing. Allie edited the Bird Anatomy page and Janet edited the Bird page. I only discovered this by clicking on Allie's link, "Axial skeleton", and Janet's link, "communication section".

Allie's Section (Axial Skeleton section from Bird Anatomy)

Content: The content in this section is neutral in tone.

Sources: The sources used in this section are reliable because they are journal articles.

Structure: This draft is well organized and I can clearly see what you changed about the original content. It was clear that you crossed out a section fo text that you didn't think fit the material or flow.

Allie is editing the Bird Anatomy page.

I feel like there was an even distribution of contribution because Allie added multiple citations to content that was not previous cited and she got rid of content she did not see fit.

There is an image of a bird with its vertebral column highlighted as well as an image of the pelvic skeleton of a bird which they plan on adding.

Integration: Both this group and mine could benefit from drafting how we plan on referring to our planned images.

Copyedits: Where you crossed out text in the synsacrum section, I would continue the sentence by explaining how the sacrum in birds is similar to the sacrum in mammals.

Janet's Section

Content: The word "better" is used to describe the sound quality through the syrinx but should be avoided as it creates a biased tone.

Sources: The source that was added is reliable because it is a journal article.

Structure: The draft is organized but I would suggest making a note that the draft is all completely new information you are adding to the Bird page and that you are not editing any old information.

Janet will be editing the Bird page.

There seems to be an even distribution of contribution because Janet added new information to the Bird page and also added a citation.

Janet plans on adding an image of trachea and larynx anatomy and an image of syrinx anatomy.

Integration: Both this group and mine could benefit from drafting how we plan on referring to our planned images.

Copyedits: The first sentence in your section is confusing. I am not sure what you are trying to say so make sure you reread it and clarify what you are trying to say. ("Unlike other vertebrate birds have both a layrnx and syrinx, with the syrinx being exclusive to birds.")

Grammar edit (Old) "This led to the syrinx being developed despite possessing a layrnx and a key feature that separates the bird from other vertebrate." (New) This led to the syrinx being developed despite possessing a layrnx and a key feature that separates the bird from other vertebrates." (Make sure vertebrates is plural).Noname352 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review - McKenzie
Allie:

- Looks like all your links work and sources are cited

"(fused vertebrae of the back also fused to the hips/pelvis"

- might want to restructure this sentence, just felt a little confusing to me

Janet:

- your syrinx link takes you to a page on greek mythology, not sure if this is on purpose

"Birds use the syrinx to create sounds rather than the larynx due to it's superior sound quality.  This led to the syrinx being developed despite possessing a layrnx and is a key feature that separates the bird from other"

- does this imply the syrinx developed because it "sounded better"

- add "is", right now the sentence is a little confusing

'''Good work y'all! Just some minor gramatical changes but overall some awesome additions''' McKenzieKay (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer review: Kelly
General

-The organization of your sandbox is good and very easy to follow

-I like the use of pictures that each person has in their section

-The beginning plan of where your edits are headed is good, maybe you could list more picture options and specific edits for each section

-The split up of the work is even and clear; I really like how you divided between axial and appendicular skeleton

Vertebral column

This section is clear, unbiased, and seems to have little to no mistakes. Is the section going to stay as a bulleted list? If so, a suggestion I would have is to organize the picture to the right so that when the text wraps it is easier to follow. Also, I suggest the following minor edit:

Group edit: "The chest consists of the furcula (wishbone) and coracoid (collar bone) which, together with the scapula, form the pectoral girdle; the side of the chest is formed by the ribs, which meet at the sternum (mid-line of the chest)."

Suggestion: instead of the semicolon, I think making this sentence into two sentences would help the flow.

Syrinx

I think this addition is good for the communication section. For general edits, I would think about another word then "better", as it was used many time throughout the paragraph and kind of seems like a bias word, even though I understand what you are trying to say. Maybe something like "... output of sound through the syrinx is louder." would be a good edit to the section.

Group edit: "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"

Suggestion: A less wordy and easier flow to this sentence could go like: "Shorter trachea do not have much of a difference between the loudness of the syrinx and larynx, but with longer trachea the syrinx produce much louder sounds than the larynx."

Content
- When you mention the synsacrum region being similar to the sacrum in mammals, I feel like it could be beneficial to provide an example of how the synsacrum is similar to the sacrum in humans for example.

- I really enjoy the diagram of the pelvic girdle of a bird and think it pairs well with the content mentioned in the vertebral column section. I am wondering however, if it is possible to either find an additional figure or label on an existing one, the different vertebrae associated with the 5 sections of the vertebral column in a general bird.

- The edits/additions provided are easy to read and hit the sweet spot for providing the right amount of detail without being too broad or providing too much detail.

Structure
- When describing the five sections of vertebrae in the vertebral column, I noticed that you sometimes mention the body region of the vertebrae in parentheses before the colon and sometimes after the colon. For example, you mention “Pygostyle (tail): this region is…” but also mention” Cervical (11-25): (neck)”. I think that keeping the formatting the same for each of the 5 sections of vertebrae would make the structure of this section easier to read. For the cervical region specifically, I think it would read better if you said “Cervical (neck): vertebrae 11-25”.

- The general structure of your edits/additions are very easy to follow and making the information appealing to read.

- The 3 citations provided in the text are legit sources and properly cited, however I might create a Literature Cited section within your first draft section to make even easier to follow.

- There does not appear to be any plagiarism.

-All the links to other pages within the text also appear to be relevant and properly done.

Copyedits
- When talking about “The chest consists of the furcula…”, this sentence sounds like a run-on sentence to me. I feel like this could be fixed if a period replaces the semicolon following “…form the pectoral girdle;…”. Since you provide a picture of the pelvic girdle in the vertebral column section, I’m wondering if it would also be beneficial to provide a diagram of the chest girdle since it is mentioned in your draft. This could be a potential addition for next draft.

- Overall, most of my recommendation are grammar error and shouldn’t be too difficult to fix. Wonderful job! NoahMcGoff (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyedits
- The first part of the first sentence is confusing to read and I feel like is missing a word or punctuation, however, I have not been able to figure out what it is missing. The part that reads weird is “Unlike other vertebrate birds have both a larynx and pharynx, with the syrinx being exclusive to birds”. I feel like there should be a comma after “vertebrate birds…”, but also feel like another word is missing after the comma.

- In the second sentence beginning with “Birds use the syrinx…”, I feel like “rather than” could be replaced with “instead of” to flow better. In addition, if you mention that the larynx isn’t used for sound production in birds, I feel like it would be beneficial to mention in which animals the larynx has been used for creating sounds.

Content
- In the second paragraph of the “Syrinx” section, you include the sentence “The syrinx's lower placement in the trachea requires a bigger phonation threshold…” which should have a citation because it doesn’t sound like you got this knowledge from another source.

- After the first sentence of the third paragraph of the “Syrinx” section I believe a citation is needed. The flow of this sentence is also odd, and I think it has to do with the end of the sentence that reads “...the larynx in different trachea length”. I’m not really sure what is trying to be said in regard to trachea length. Maybe adding an “s” on “length” would suffice.

- In the second sentence of the third paragraph, you use the term “loudness” which I think could be replaced by a word like “volume” or even “intensity”. The term ‘loudness’ just sounds odd to read. - The citations lead to a proper reference, but I think it could be beneficial to try and find another resource or two to help add to this section in the future.

Structure
- The structure of your “Syrinx” section was really easy to follow and nicely laid out for the reader. I think the figures are good additions but I would consider linking to them or mentioning them in parentheses in the text when the trachea, larynx, and syrinx are first mentioned so that the reader can use the figures to better understand the ideas you are presenting in the text.

- Overall, most of the fixes I recommend are grammatical and deal with sentence structure, but I think you did a wonderful job on creating this new section and I believe it will really improve the bird anatomy page. NoahMcGoff (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Brooke Faubion- Peer review
- 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 Blfaubion (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Allie
Is the section with a line drawn through it something you want to completely remove from the article? If this is the case, I was curious as to why. I understand removing the language that is specific to pigeons since it is a general bird article, but I still think it might be useful to include that the synsacrum is a fusion of the sacrum, lumbar, and some caudal vertebrae. I know the image that you included shows this (great image by the way!) but it might still be useful to mention it in the body of the article.

I think the citations that you added look good, aside from the first one which I am unsure about. I cannot tell if it is a peer reviewed source so you might want to look into that and confirm it is acceptable for wikipedia.

Other than that the edits look good to me!

Janet
I think the opening sentence, "Unlike other vertebrate birds have both a larynx and syrinx, with the syrinx being exclusive to birds" should instead be, "Unlike other vertebrates, birds have both a larynx and syrinx, with the syrinx being exclusive to birds." Same with the last word of this fist paragraph, vertebrate should be the plural vertebrates. Also, larynx is misspelled twice within this first paragraph.

The source you are adding to the article looks good!

I'm not sure about the images you chose. The first one is good but does not show the syrinx, and since the second one is not labeled it is harder to tell where the syrinx is in relation to the rest of the trachea. I think it might be better to try and find one image that labels both the larynx and the syrinx within the trachea, instead of having two separate images.Nautas99 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review - Ornithologists

 * Overall group box feedback:
 * Really enjoyed reading over your group edits! Focus on really trying to make your sections more cohesive and complete. I know it is still early on so there's plenty of time to make more contributions. I love the images that you guys have, they are really great and help contribute to understanding this page and it's sections substantially. Pay attention to grammatical errors along with spelling.


 * Allie Curtis:
 * Great job editing! I like that your edits are concise, and that you added citations that were needed. Consider creating actual subheadings and then writing in complete sentences rather than using bullet points. This will help with overall organization. Also, if you could elaborate a little more on your descriptions, it would help with overall completeness of your sections that you are editing. An introductory paragraph at the beginning of your section could be helpful also, to lead readers into the section you plan on expanding upon. Overall, focus on making your section more complete. Reading what you have down out-loud also really helps with overall syntax of sentences as well.


 * Janet Chan:
 * Really good start so far! I like that you are focusing on the syrinx as it has allowed you to elaborate more upon one subject. Quality over quantity! I see that you only have one source and it would be awesome if you could find 1-2 more to contribute to your edits. Great job using neutral language! Try to think about expanding your vocabulary and using more specific words, as opposed to words that are broad. For example, you have a sentence that says "overall, this created a better quality output compared to the larynx" and it would be helpful to replace this word with a different one. Perhaps you could say "overall, this created a more superior output compared to the larynx." I also would suggest adding a different link for syrinx as the one you have takes us to a different page that doesn't seem related.

AlyssaJordan (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review - Cindy Ocotlan-Garcia
As previously stated, it would be helpful if you guys stated there are 2 articles being edited and who is editing what article. Overall the structure of your sandbox is neatly organized and easy to follow.

Allie Curtis; Axial skeleton


 * Good job keeping the tone neutral throughout this section.
 * Also, the inclusion of images really helped me follow along with the written information.
 * I noticed that the Pubis is mentioned in the diagram of a general bird but not in the written information. I’d consider adding information on it or getting rid of it, just so the reader isn’t left wondering why it wasn’t mentioned in the text.
 * Overall, it’s a very good section.

Janet Chen; Communication section


 * First of all, I’d like to point out that adding a syrinx subsection into the communication section is great! You were able to provide a lot of useful information.
 * I’d consider rewording your first sentence, it doesn’t allow a smooth flow when reading it
 * “superior sound quality” seems biased to me, I’d consider rewording it
 * Throughout this section, I felt that the syrinx was portrayed as better-- maybe consider rewording it and just comparing them neutrally if possible. I feel like a neutral tone for this section can be hard because birds develop this new feature which is OBVIOUSLY better for them and benefits them more but we don’t want to sound bias.
 * Overall, great information.

Cindydaily (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review: Cyah Dade
Allie the organization and structure of the section is very good.

the section is easy to follow

the crossed out section of the third bullet point is a little bit confusing, I wasn't sure if you were crossing it out from the original or not or if I was supposed to read it.

the references look good and so do the citations

Good Job!

Janet the organization is clear and well thought out

"This led to the syrinx being developed despite possessing a larynx and a key feature that separates the bird from other vertebrate." This sentence is a little confusing as your first sentence stated that birds have both a larynx and a syrinx.

your link for syrinx leads to a page about greek mythology, not the link I think you meant to include

the layout of section is very well done

overall, the draft great, good job!! CyahDade (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ornithology Review: Loring
I really liked how you both set up your sandbox. Having it in a form that looks really similar to the Wikipedia page makes it easy to understand and follow. You both also did a great job adding sources and photos that contribute to the pages. The main issues that I found in the page are ones that were previously mentioned, specifically grammar and the ‘syrinx’ link going to a Greek nymph. Other than that, these look like really good edits! Abbieloring (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review: Alexia
Overall your page is very easy to follow and the parts that each member is contributing is clearly made. I like the format that both of you made for the page along with the alignment of your images.

 Allie 

Great use of images I appreciate the very clear and concise descriptions that you put under both. I like how you use the cross-out method that clearly distinguishes the edits that you are making to the paper. One suggestion that I have is that instead of bullet points you could list them and bold the five terms or number them if you want to keep them in a list format. Your sources are credible for the most part. I would try to stick to using peer-reviewed journal articles to obtain information for your page instead of websites.

 Janet 

The images that you included supplement your articles and edits very well. You made some great edits that added to the overall understanding of the syrinx. There were only a few grammatical errors such as the first sentence needs to be reworded a bit. Your journal article that you linked is a great credible source and I think if you found another one this would add more credibility to the paper as well by not going off just one source. Also, the link you have for syrinx goes to the wrong syrinx paper and could be an easy fix by making sure it links to the proper page.

Tori Doten Review
Review Ornothologists

Overall feedback

These edits are really great! This is heading in the right direction. I think an area that could be improved is the use of more resources. A lot of information is pulled from the same sources. This could lead to some bias information.

Allie's Section- The images a very informative and very effective in conveying the information. I noticed that for the caudal and pygostyle sections, you included information about its functions or what structures connect to these areas. Doing this for the Cervical, trunk, and synsacrum sections could be very helpful for readers trying to find information about this.

Janet's section- This section was very well organized and the information is presented clearly. However, it seems that all this information was pulled from one source. It may be beneficial to look for more resources in order to balance the information and make sure that there is not a bias.

Overall great work!