User talk:Jmosbey17

Welcome!
Hello, Jmosbey17, 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) 20:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey Justin! Great article! I really liked how concise you made your explanations. I did not have any major recommendations for you, but I did comment on a few things that you will find in your article. I really liked how you included links to terms, species, and rules in your article. This makes it easy for a reader to understand what you are discussing. Your history section is excellent! I liked how you correlated two studies to explain how the temperature-size rule was arrived at. This was very beneficial to me because I have been struggling with the history section in my article. After seeing your example I now know how I will deal with this. I did recommend that you might consider including pictures of the species you mention in your "Supporting Evidence" and "Exceptions to the rule" sections. I feel that this could further a readers understanding of the temperature-size rule by providing them with visuals of different sized organisms. I believe the only other comments I made were on possible formatting considerations. Great job on your article. It is very concise, nicely balanced, neutral, and not redundant. Also, very good use of references in your article. --Plumbob200 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justin, This looks really good! I think that you do a great job of explaining the concept and I appreciated the history with Bergmann's rule and the examples both in support of and contrary to the temperature-size rule. One area that I think could use a little more detail is what distinguishes the temperature-size rule from Bergmann's rule. For example, why doesn't the temp-size rule apply to endotherms? Otherwise, I think it looks great! I made a note on the introduction for formatting, but the rest of the formatting looks good and the article is well organized. Lang1803 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The leading section is really good but you could give a little more information on the topic so that the following sections flow with the lead. The format looks great but instead of bulleted points in the last two sections, you should put it into sentence form. The information is very informative. There are a few sentences that you could reword and some grammatical errors to correct but overall it is a very well written and concise article. Jroberson4 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Jroberson4

Peer Review - Steven Lemp
Good article, Justin! Overall it was well written, and I only have a few suggestions that are mainly about formatting (I'll leave them as comments too). I don't think you need the date of the paper after every time you write an author's name - at the very least only do it the first time, and with the works cited links I'm not sure you need it at all. The "trade-off as an underlying mechanism" section is good but could be broken up with one or two subheadings (or at least some indenting), because at the moment it's a big block of text. The "Notes" section as a disclaimer about your supporting evidence section can just go within your supporting evidence section at the beginning, rather than having a whole separate block for it. That's it, great job! - Steven Lemp

Peer review review
Hi Justin! Great job! You did a really nice job with this topic. Your reviewers have done an excellent job as well, and I would look through all the comments and address them (you don't have to address them all, but think carefully about what will improve your article). I added some of my specific comments to your article as well. Just clean up a few formatting things (like the References section at the bottom, and remove the title of your lead section so it can go above the table of contents), address comments, and make final improvements (your reviewers had some suggestions for pictures), and you should be good to go. This will be a great addition to Wikipedia. Advevol (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Final revisions from the author
So in trying to determine the best way to work through how to describe the changes I made, I decided it would be best to work through a section by section basis on what I changed, added, or didn't think needed to be changed. I removed the introductory section so that it would not appear before the contents tab as instructed. There were a few comments on what exactly the plastic response to environmental temperature variation was so I did my best to explain that in a short and concise manner. I did add a few descriptors here and there in the first overall summary section but didn't change it too much. I thought it was concise and to the point.

The history section I divided into subgroups so that the text didn't look like a big blob of mess. I elaborated in more detail on how the temperature size rule differs from Bergmann's rule since it was commented on multiple times. I added an image along with the first section so the readers could get an accurate representation of Bergmann's rule in the wild. There weren't many pictures to go on so I did the best I could with what was available. There were a couple comments about citing the dates that the authors published their works so I removed any dates after including the dates after the first citations so it didn't look so redundant.

The tradeoffs section I took Steven's advice and split it up based on the tradeoff I was describing instead of trying to lump everything together into one big clump of information. After going back and reading it I could see how it got really confusing when it wasn't separated. There were a few grammatical errors within that section as well that I corrected, as well as removed a sentence or two that didn't need to be there once I divided the sections up.

The final section I combined all three of the supporting evidence, exceptions and notes into one large investigations section so that they read more fluently. I removed the references section altogether (which was only there because I couldn't find the citation for the Atkinson paper but I later found it while working on my thesis). I added two pictures into this section of the common lizard and the eastern fence lizard so that the readers can get a visual of the specimens. There were no actual images of organisms exhibiting the temperature size rule, only graphical comparisons of populations but I didn't feel it would have been useful to have graphical comparisons in there for novice readers who may not understand what they would be looking at.

Ways to improve Temperature-size rule
Hello, Jmosbey17,

Thanks for creating Temperature-size rule! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 17:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)