User talk:Esallinger1

Welcome!
Hello, Esallinger1, 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey Eleni! Great job! Your work is very well done, very well organized, and very concise. I left some in text comments regarding possible rearrangements of sections, and also considering inserting some wikipedia links for scientific concepts that a novice or layman reader might not understand. Overall, I had nothing major to recommend for you to revise. i felt your article was very well balanced, very neutral, and not redundant. I am very grateful that I was assigned your article for peer review. I feel that after reviewing your article I have a better vision for organizing mine and also for making it more concise. Again, very nice work, you should be very proud of what you produced. I can only hope mine will be as polished as yours. Great job!--Plumbob200 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Eleni! Overall your article was great! The only major recommendations I have is reorganize the order of some of your sections. To me it would make sense to have your pitfalls at the end of the section so that you are getting all your major points covered in the beginning of your paper. Once some final links are attached I think that this will be a great article. Jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoore31 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey Eleni, I really liked your article and enjoyed reading it! I think the way you have it organized is very professional and logical. I also appreciated the opportunity to learn about a new topic. I loved your concise phrasing and that you discussed the pitfalls. I didn’t think to include a section on potential shortcomings in my article and I may add one now. It’s hard to find areas of improvement because the organization is really tight. The only suggestion I might make is to find ways to make it more accessible to people without such a strong background in biology. Its very well written but since wikipedia can be used by anyone maybe there is a way to add a little extra information when you talk about specific terms that may be unfamiliar to laymen. Just an idea though, I honestly really like it the way it is. Christie ChristieBirdsong (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Steven Lemp
Great article, Eleni! Everything was broken down really nicely. My comments primarily had to do with providing links if possible - your final edit could benefit from linking out to some of the more difficult concepts/mechanisms. Otherwise, my only suggestions had to do with your opening paragraph and your "example" section. I like that you provide some questions that landscape genetics seek to answer, but there are too many in a row - I would either have less or, even better in my opinion, turn it into a small "Hypotheses" subsection. I would move your "example" section to a different place - I realize that they are two distinct headings, but nonetheless I had a moment of confusion where I thought your were giving an "example" of a "pitfall". Again, great job! - Steven Lemp — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatmanWallet123 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer review review
Hi Eleni! Great job on your article. It is very well written and comprehensive. I thought your peer reviewers did a great job, so look over their comments and respond to the ones you think will improve your article. Many of their suggests were to include links, because the article was a bit technical at times (assuming the reader to be a layperson). Things like "source-sink" have a nice Wikipedia article that you can link to, but others may not. If not, consider defining terms (even parenthetically). For example, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "matrix quality", so a clarification of that would be really helpful. I think the reviewers also made interesting points about the order of your sections, so consider responding to that. Great job! Advevol (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

response
Thank you to all for the positive comments and constructive suggestions! The largest changes I made were in the organization, as almost all of you suggested the same things. For example, I moved the "example" section so it didn't seem like an example of a pitfall- this just shows the value of having fresh eyes looking at the article. I also added numerous links to the technical terms (thankfully, most of them already have a wiki page) and will probably go in and add some short parenthetic definitions to some of them in addition to the links. Again- thanks for the recommendations! Esallinger1 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)