User talk:Jmreynolds1/sandbox

It does not look like enough of the page was edited. New references were added but the minimum number of new sources was not reached. I'd suggest finding new sources to help you further expand the article until you reach at least ten. Your study was linked well into the article, no improvements needed. The article is written from a neutral perspective and all the added information is useful. No improvements needed. The article is structured well, but seems to move all over the place, with details seeming specific for such a broad subject, which overrepresents certain things in relation to the topic. However I do not know if that can be helped just because ecyosystem diversity is such a broad and self explanatory subject. Because of that I think the article could use expanding to hit all ten required sources. I would suggest keeping the final article as broad as your subject rather than honing in on any one thing that would be more suited for its own Wikipedia page, as what has been added has little relevance to the topic as a whole. Emphasize that what you have done serves as an example that ties into the broader subject. Connor Adams (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A lead section that is easy to understand 1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, you make it evident that Ecosystem Diversity is something that is a very important to the field of biology itself. 2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? It does reflect the more important parts of the article in the lead. 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No, It does not. 4.	Is anything missing? No 5.	Is anything redundant? No

A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Yes, they flow in a logical order 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? No, they are fine as they are

Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? It seems like the section on impact could be expanded a bit more, maybe mention a specific example or two? 9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? The examples section seems like it could be taken out. 10.	Is anything off-topic? No 11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Yes it does 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Everything seems to be covered 13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, It remains relatively neutral throughout its entirety.

Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, It remains neutral throughout 15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No, everything comes off as natural throughout the article. 16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Nope, It doesnt 17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. It focuses on neither the positive aspects nor the negative aspects too much. It looks at both.

Reliable sources 18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Every statement that is referenced comes from a primary source 19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. The statements all equally come from different sources, no one source carries the entire article. 20.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Every source is used and is represented accurately.

Mfkamowski (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Today in class i went over point by point each of the reviews. I understand the criticism and am working to correct it before publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmreynolds1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)