User talk:Bucl003/sandbox

Group Feedback from Osquaesitor:

General: - As you know, part of this draft required that you make plans about the images you wanted to use. Some of that is alluded to here, but that needs expansion and your peer reviewers noted that as well. Make sure that you respond to this in your next assignment. Also complete or go back to the student training and you can also go here for a very comprehensive how-to and resources on contributing to Wikimedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents -Your peer reviewers vasillated between liking your organization scheme and knowing who was doing what work or not. An easy fix to this would be to continue your great pattern of page organization and include headings for topics and author contributions. By now, you will have seen some great exampls while reviewing the work of others.

-When posting to the talk pages or when asking for feedback from the experts, I suggest that you draft those questions and include them here so that the whole team can see what you asked. Have you heard back from posts or asked about these ideas you have? This might be a good thing to do.

Specific section comments: - Your peer reviwers covered these quite well and gave you some great ideas and comments. You have done a great job and have a great base to build from.

Osquaesitor (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

PEER REVIEWS:

I think this draft is put together really well. There were no unfinished thoughts or grammatical errors that jumped out at me. What types of pictures do you plan to use to emphasize your points? Also, there are many places in this draft that could be linked to another wikipedia page that helps to explain terms that the reader may not know at first glance. For example - you could link Pinnae, and any of the bones mentioned in the legs section as well as the specific muscles mentioned. Also, there is a portion that says rabbits have "muscled hind legs" that give them power and speed, it explains which muscles are used later, but maybe put the specific muscles at the beginning of the paragraph - that suggestion is only a stylistic suggestion but it may help the reader better understand WHY the back legs are so important to the rabbit. The sources you used are reliable and informative. GermanShortHair (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Kuponya's Draft Review
I thought that this draft was very well organized and had a good flow across member contribution and through the paragraphs. I really liked how the writers would define terms like thermoregulation and others just to make everything more clear. I think that overall some sentences could be shortened to be more concise, but that is me being nit-picky more than anything. The sentence flow is easily to follow so that is just a suggestion. All content is neutral and gives an all over description of the thermoregulatory traits of the ear and discusses how it works in cold and warm weather. I can see that you are contributing to the Rabbit page, which is I think is best since your draft is doesn't focus in on any one group of rabbit but rather discusses the generalized characteristics of rabbits. It is also obvious who is going to be contributing to which page and what they are contributing to the topic. From what I can see, there is a fairly even distribution of topic additions from each group member. The images plans are described, so I can see that two images are going to be considered in their contributions based either on the ear or the hindlimb. I think that this information will be really helpful to what the draft discusses just so that readers can better understand exactly what you are talking about. After looking at the rabbit page, I think it would be interesting if you did your own dissection of the rabbit hindlimb and added your own annotated picture of the rabbit hindlimb muscles and webbed toes instead of just adding to an image or something like that. I checked out the sources used in the draft, and they all seem to be academic and informationally sound articles. None of them are from poor or unregulated sites. Kuponya (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

There overall seems to be a pretty even contribution from all team members, and all the proposed sections on discussion the rabbit's ears, thermoregulation, and hind legs are all of good structure and well-planned out with proper citation. The only thing I would say about the group's draft is that it is only slightly disorganized by topic; the topics on the ear and hindlegs seem to be scattered throughout without being grouped together.

Ears; the draft of this topic is well structured, though I would suggest adding a few more resources. I like that there are plans to add figures/illustrations, as this is a harder task than adding text and does not appear to be really common in other drafts.

Thermoregulation; this section is well organized and appears to be of good length, discussing material in good detail. There are a number of references to other important biological concepts and even ones discussed in lecture, which shows good implementation and use of material. I would suggest adding a few more resources. Also, could discussion of thermoregulation differ between rabbits in different environments, such as those living in deserts versus grasslands? Consider this information given that rabbits populate a number of different environments that vary greatly.

Hindlegs; this section overall is easy to read and sounds like an great addition to the Wiki article. Hindlegs are a prominent structure of the rabbit's anatomy, so their discussion will be useful and informative to all readers. You could also contribute to the topic by further discussing the four muscle types that were specified, especially considering that you will have the opportunity to dissect and examine the muscles yourself. Petrikyv (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Skinnerd's peer review

There is a great content and amount of information in the draft section for each group member. However, it is unclear as to which group member is contributing to what section of the topic to be revised. Also, a lead section that is easy to understand is missing from the draft. A good amount of reliable sources were used and the content is neutral. there is also a balanced coverage of the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnerd11 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)