User talk:Honggengqi

Welcome!
Hello, Honggengqi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi, Honggengqi -- welcome to Wikipedia! As Ian mentioned, the Teahouse is a great resource for new editors. But did you know that Wikipedia also has an extensive help library for common questions? Of course, if you run into a question or problem, you're always welcome to get in touch with me either by email or on my talk page. Happy editing! Fraudoktorkatie (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

topic for IAH209: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy

Peer review
First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The article is well organized and covers a wide range of topics concerning cadavers. It talks about current uses, issues, and potential solutions to cadaver shortages. A phrase that stuck out was that cadavers are destined for medical dissection whereas corpses are destined or burial.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would suggest that the author uses in-text citations and elaborates more on the information that is already presented. Although there is a broad range of information, it does not cover in depth on any one topic. This would allow for greater verifiability and coverage on cadavers.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing to improve the article would be to speak without bias. Checking for words like “most importantly”, and “Nowadays” will help to remove bias and write in an objective way.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I like that the article talked about both a problem and a solution which could be applied to medical empathy. Theresaquaderer (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? -There is a lot of great information and the definition you added seems very accurate and easy to understand. Your article had many different types of sections that break up the information and are interesting to read. I did not realize that artist and archeologist also benefit from cadavers, not just doctors, and I liked the little portion about cadavers in history. You did a great job with your article and I think it will be good information added to the page.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -I feel that there could still be more information added to the article. I was wanting to read more about cadavers, but I feel that I got very surface level information about the subject. I would like to see more in depth about the qualifications a body needs to be a cadaver and maybe more uses for cadavers. I think this will strengthen the article and make it even more interesting.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -I think the most important thing you could do is just add more diverse information to the article to give people when they come to this article. I think learning more in depth material will help people understand just how important cadavers are and the importance of donation would be.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I liked the quote regarding history. I would like to put something in my article that relates back to history. Goodell8 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)