User talk:Kingkl/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Monophyly, Paraphyly, and Polyphyly

Monophyly article - The information given in this article was clear in defining and explaining what the term was. A better explanation to the use of the figures would be helpful, the author doesn't clearly state how the images help in defining a monophyly. In the definition section, there could be mention of more specific definition, instead of just the broad definitions that were given. This would expand the details and use of the term monophyly and how it can be more applied. All links worked for cites worked, I didn't distinctly see any plagiarism in the article. The formatting worked for the term which was being defined. It is fairly similar to how we talked about monophyletic groups.

Paraphyly article - The information in the post was relevant and clear, but it was overused in some sections (such as examples of paraphyly groups). The article could have looked at the definitions that had since been defined through biology and focused less on the examples of what it is. It would also be good to add how it connects to polyphyly groups as well as the monopyly groups. The sources used for the article were mostly books and and scholarly articles, some of the links people would only have access to if they had a subscription to an article database, which may or may not be a downside to them. The linguist section is a bit odd, I would not have included or added into a separation section.

Polyphyly article - This article is similarly formatted to the monophyly article. They did make a considerable judgement on how polyphyletic groups are discouraged from being used, though true it could have been stated in less of an argumentative way. There was only reference used and a lot of information that could have come from a source. The article could use more sources and a check through for plagiarism. The information and formatting was good, could use some reference into the diagrams given for clarity of the definition.

Group Evaluation Work
What is a content gap and how can identify one? A content gap is a when an article is missing a part or entire section is missing or skipped. To identify one, reading through the article and watching for when the author misses and/or skips a whole section of information.

'''Why might a content gap arise? How can remedy them?''' If the data or information has not been written about or studied. A remedy would be to express that no current research or information has been found that could fill the gap, or is a place for future research.

'''What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?''' It is a public based site, so people will most likely have biases, but they can be neutral. This is different from our view of bias, because we would refrain from having biases on any information and staying neutral about the topic.

Issues found in the article: The articles tended to be very specific on definitions, it did not take a holistic, neutral view on how they are and can be defined. Examples proved to be useful, but were not represented in every article. For those who did not include examples, definitions seemed under explained or incomplete. There were a couple opinion statements through the articles that could would not be necessary in presenting the information that followed (ie In the monophyly article, the writer states that the definitions take time to be accepted. This was not a necessary piece of information to present the information.) LuteMJS (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Questions Could definitions be more expanded and holistic? In the monophyly article,some of the information is not necessary, could it be eliminated or reworked to be useful?

Katie, nice job, but please put everything in your sandbox NOT your talk pageOsquaesitor (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

== Adding a new to the article in Monophyly

Goal: Add 1-2 sentences and cite that statement to a reliable source, as you learned in the online training

Monophyly - Expanding the definition section of that paper to be more informative of what a Monophyly is.I used an article that defines how a monophyly fails to relate all organisms (Carr, Dr Steven M. "Monophyletic, Polyphyletic, & Paraphyletc Taxa". www.mun.ca. Retrieved 2018-02-23.) Full link: https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm

My edit: The loose definition also fails to recognize the relations of all organisms.

I added this into the definition because the author started to talk about how the loose definition was an issue, but didn't finish explaining it. I felt this helped clarify how it is an issue and add into their definition that they had pretty clearly defined already.

Adding a new to the article in Monophyly
Goal: Add 1-2 sentences and cite that statement to a reliable source, as you learned in the online training

Monophyly - Expanding the definition section of that paper to be more informative of what a Monophyly is.I used an article that defines how a monophyly fails to relate all organisms (Carr, Dr Steven M. "Monophyletic, Polyphyletic, & Paraphyletc Taxa". www.mun.ca. Retrieved 2018-02-23.) Full link: https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm

My edit: The loose definition also fails to recognize the relations of all organisms.

I added this into the definition because the author started to talk about how the loose definition was an issue, but didn't finish explaining it. I felt this helped clarify how it is an issue and add into their definition that they had pretty clearly defined already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkl (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)