User talk:Hobbscassidy/sandbox

Feedback for Group Gameplan:'''

-You are going to want to start organizing your sandbox(es) so that things are easier to find and the space is easier for you and everyone else to navigate. Here is an example of how you can do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ayersmm/sandbox.

-I recommend that you do this for both your individual sandboxes as you draft content and in the collective shared sandbox.

- For those individuals whose sandboxes are the "group" space, I also recommend that you designate a space for your independent work.

-Start embedding the URLs for the pages you are editing. That makes it easier for you to get feedback from anyone on your proposed changes because it enables rapid navigation to the relevant page. That will help you as well and make it easy to navigate to talk pages as needed.

- Be sure to identify that this is your group sandbox location where common drafting will take place.

-Remember to link to this group sandbox from your individual sandboxes.

-It would be useful to know which team member is taking the lead on what section.

-I highly recommend that individual group members compile information on the sections they are taking a lead on in their own Sandboxes first and THEN transfer them here for group edits as you help each other make this group assignment (and future assignments) the best they can be.

- I really like the way you use parallel structure to organize your content and I really like how the citations are embedded into the relevant information you might use from that source. However, your page needs more SHOW in addition to TELL. Ask yourself: "How are other Wikipedians supposed to assess that these are good sources?" If you don't put the sources in context, how can that happen? What sorts of relevant information do they contain that will help you add needed content (also, what is that needed content?)? This becomes particularly critical when you post to the talk pages. Effective writers guide their readers rather than ask them to divine what the author's meaning and intention is. -You do this very well in the talk sections that you all contributed to. I suggest that you cut and paste these into your gameplan. Remember that this document will serve as a roadmap for what you are going to do, so why not keep all of those things in the same place?

- As you move on, you will quickly begin to see a need/desire to add images. Make sure that you have completed 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

Specific Comments:

-Teeth: This is a potentially very interesting discussion. You will likely be able to get some good pictures, so see the above link for adding images. You will also find your lab and lecture text to be very good places to start looking at the formation of teeth and tooth morphological variation. That will be a great place to start. Why do they have two kinds of teeth? Does that mean that they are not considered homodont and are [|heterodont] instead then?

-Gills: So how are these different from fish gills? I assume that you have found this [|page], which is why embedding the URLs is so useful.

-Mucus and granular glands: As with teeth, the textbooks will be a great place to start. Not only will they have information, but they will also give you ideas for the appropriate pages to edit.

Osquaesitor (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review/Copy Edit (Due 3/24/17)
Cassidy: I would suggest providing a citation for the assertion that teeth are used "strictly for grasping" (specificity of language). I would also provide a citation for your anatomical description that they lack muscles along the entire upper jaw. Regarding your first bullet point, I think it would be interesting if you included morphological or phylogenetic analyses of the teeth in salamanders, or explain why the teeth are distinguished within 3 different types. I would also provide a citation for the inertial feeding mechanism (if one is available), but the mechanistic overview is sound. Overall, your draft provides a good schematic for improving the salamander-related wikipedia pages, just be sure to include properly formatted citations where applicable.

Josh: I like your idea of expanding and organizing the salamander page by external and internal characteristics. That will certainly make the information easier for readers to glean. I see that for you expanding on gill musculature and thyroid biochemical implications you have acquired sources, just be sure to integrate them in the wikipedia superscript format upon your finalized edits. The thyroid receptor mutation is certainly something interesting to elaborate on!

Jacob: Your edit draft demonstrates a good idea of the direction your group is aiming at in improving the salamander relevant pages. You provide ample detail delineating comparisons and contrasts between the mucous and granular glands, both anatomically and functionally. Perhaps include a reference for this anatomical knowledge, unless your source 5 addresses all your referenced information. I would say that your draft also demonstrates accessible syntax and grammar, lending to a coherent piece overall. Shawnbrookins (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Feedback from FigginsRD:
Cassidy: I think you should definitely add the information from the "talk page post" as it would elaborate as to how morphology affects behavior (explicitly feeding behavior). You could also expand on the three different kinds of teeth and speak as to how each function an why they are categorized as such. Avoid using contractions like "don't" in formal writing. Also expand on the fact that salamanders lack muscles along the upper jaw (i.e., why is that important? does it affect their feeding?).

Josh: "normal" thyroid hormones is somewhat vague- Perhaps list them and link them? The last phrase is somewhat jumbled and could be revised for better clarity. Also, the links are not cited in your section. How does the thyroid manifest in the species you are dissecting? You should take a picture and label it to show placement and structure!

Jacob: You have a lot of good information here, but it could be condensed significantly. For example, the "both of which are structurally... difference in function" phrase could either be deleted completely or could jump directly into difference between granular and mucous glands. Also avoid phrases like "many other functions" because it is vague- List the functions if necessary, but do not leave the reader hanging and needing to Google the other functions. The information looks great though and the terminology seems well thought out and executed!

FigginsRD (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)FigginsRD

Peer Review: Article Draft Critique
Cassidy: Overall, I think you did a good job of discussing what improvements may be added to the article. I believe that the additions of dentary and other feeding structures will prove to be beneficial in expanding the contents of the article. Additionally, I agree with the comment above suggesting a citation for your statement regarding the "strictly grasping" function for the teeth. Although this may be true (I personally don't know), what other ways are you able to phrase? I suggest a statement such as, "Teeth are primarily used for grasping prey, and typically lack a crushing function." as a way to hedge some of the assertions in the original statement. Other than that, you have a good plan moving forward.

Josh: I think you have a good plan for expand on the anatomical structures of the salamander without overwhelming yourself by focusing in on the specific structures found in your organism. Although your statement in the 2nd bullet point is informative, I think you should continue to cite your sources that you listed below your draft section. I would also suggest looking at a different way to phrase your opening sentence saying, "Most salamanders have both thyroid and parathyroid glands..." Citing this would help alleviate some of the subjectivity it implies, but rephrasing the statement overall I think would be more effective.

Jake: All your information is clearly represented, and I feel that your writing is fairly easy to understand, making it sufficient for an actual Wikipedia page. You use various terms like "cutaneous" and "keratinocytes", which may be novel terms to some individuals reading your article. I would suggest linking key terms such as these to their related Wikipedia pages. Also, I was wondering where you got most all of your information. I saw the citation at the end of your mucous gland section, but does that source cover the entire draft? Be sure to actively site your sources to help prevent any potential issues with plagiarism accusations.

As a whole group, I believe you all are doing good work with your article selections and proposed modifications.--Joe.Perez (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Cassidy: Your talk page post is great, and clearly explains the concepts that you'd like to improve. I liked your drafts, but I'd recommend adding a source to your first bullet point, and to clarify the last sentence. An improvement to the second bullet point could be to add links to the various sets of teeth (assuming the pages exist). Overall, you've identified several gaps in the page, and filled them nicely. I'm assuming that you're adding each bullet to a different part of the page, but, if not, it might be worth it to construct a paragraph that starts with the teeth and leads into the digestive system.

Josh: Your suggestions for improvements could greatly improve the Salamander page. I thought your draft is well conceptualized, but the last sentence could be edited to improve clarity and flow. The links to various pages and the example that you used are a nice touch, and helps to create a professional feel to your draft. Overall, this is a great start to your topic. I would recommend adding a sentence or two regarding the gaps in the skeletal system that you had mentioned.

Jacob: Well done Jacob. You explained several concepts clearly, and defined the key terms. Now you just need to add your citations to substantiate your claims, although I'm sure you already have them ready to be added. It might be beneficial to add links to existing pages for the glands and structures that you mentioned. This is an impressive draft, and i can only recommend improving the general flow of your passages.

-- Grant Kido (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

-Cassidy-

Sounds very interesting. Dalen from the rat dissecting group is also focusing on the teeth, specifically the incisors. Maybe you could consult with him about what your results are to compare and contrast? Also, you might need to find some newer more reliable sources for your dissection. Overall, great start! Nordliam (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

-Josh-

With regard to the internal features of the mudpuppy, are you going to focus on any of the other internal features, or just the thyroid gland? Also, are you planning on focusing on just the external features of the mudpuppy in general, or a specific external feature? Finally, the mudpuppy must have lost the parathyroid gland due to some type of evolutionary pressure elicited on it either by another organism or its environment-- maybe you could look at the benefits of losing the parathyroid gland for the mudpuppy? Nordliam (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

-Jacob-

Sounds very interesting, especially because we have just covered some of this material in class. Does the mudpuppy possess both of these glands? What wikipedia articles are you planning on adding this information to? Finally, you might need to find some more/newer sources. Overall, sounds like a great topic because it's pretty specific and not too broad! Nordliam (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Cassidy: This is some good information. I agree with you the page does seem to be missing information on teeth and feeding. I think to take your draft further, maybe add more in about the other impacts that affect feeding. This part sounds very interesting but there isn't a lot of information on it here. Really great ideas!

Josh: Good start! I like your idea of adding in more about organs, glands, and more anatomical information besides just the "trunk, limbs and tail." I am also confused where you want to put this information specifically on the thyroid? I think the salamander page? I also might suggest discussing what glands a mudpuppy does have that are in replace of the parathyroid gland (if any?). Good information overall!

Jacob: This is well put together draft and very detailed, good job! There's also some good sources to go along. I think what might help is condensing this material to be more specific. I believe this is about the mudpuppy, but what page are you adding this to? REally great start! Lexiehiggins (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Liz Aguilar:

Cassidy

Great start on your first draft regarding the "teeth." I think a tittle to your section would be beneficial. I was confused on exactly where these bullet points would be placed on the actual page. You also talk about an article about "diet," but you don't expand on it at all. I think adding a diet section would be a great idea and going into details about how nutrition choice in various animal species effects teeth, or the specific diet in relation to the species jaw structure. Great job Cassidy!

Josh

I think you could expand more on what these glands are. I found myself having to do my own research on the Axolotl because I did not get what the comparison was in relation to the thyroid gland. I think you should break the second sentence up into parts and go into more detail. This may be a little too advance for certain readers to understand. Pictures will also be beneficial for your descriptions. Keep up the good work!

Jacob

Overall great compare and contrast on the granular and mucous glands. I did feel like there was minimal to no information on the mucous gland in relation to the granular gland. I found my self asking: what is the mucous glands function? how is this different from the granular gland? I would also suggest adding figures or pictures in order to expand on these comparisons. Great start!!!

Liz0618 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great work! I really like the collaboration on your group page and how well organized it is. For Cassidy: I believe your topic is the mouth and teeth? I think that is nice straight forward anatomical area to study. The only suggestion I would have, as it may be helpful to your group, is to have a hyperlink to the page you plan on editing. For Josh: The sources you found are quality. There will be plenty to add on to the salamander page for organs and skeletal systems. For Jacob: Nice work so far, you have some really well formed ideas written out already. Are you adding the info on glandular and mucous glands to the salamander page? It wasn't quite clear were the written information was going to end up. As I suggested to Cassidy, it could be helpful to add a hyperlink to the page you plan on editing. Good job guys.Benson02 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Nice work guys! I really like the organization of each person’s ideas and information. Josh: your draft is really good, and I’m also curious about is the advantages or disadvantages of the mudpuppy without the parathyroid gland? And yes in the Salamander page should focus on the skeleton structure and how it could relate and help with the thyroid glands function. For Cassidy great job on stating the specific function of the mudpuppy teeth. I suggest to indicate where this draft should be added in the Salamander page because I was a little confused on what section you were editing. Finally Jacob your paragraphs are very well written with good details about the mucous and granular glands. I really don’t see anything wrong with it, only that were you are going to place this information in the Salamander page or the mucous and granular glands? Keep up the good work! Blancapaola2 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Peer Reviews:
-Read these comments carefully and compare them to the feedback posted for you on Sakai on the content of your first draft under Resources and Wikipedia Assignments Feedback. There is a folder there for your team. You may also wish to delete some of the feedback comments that were left in your sandbox (not the talk page) after you have addressed them.Osquaesitor (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)