User talk:LGamby85/sandbox

Hi I'm Amber. I'm going to give a grade based on the grading rubric then an explanation.

Depth: D. It seems like the information you have written is for natural selection not offspring. It doesn't give definition of offspring. Research: E. It seems like there is little research there is only one cite you used. You should use many different books, website and put together all the information together. Thinking:E. There should be more information on what offspring means, from many different sources. The information doesn't describe offspring, but can be used as subtitles. Communication: E. Its not very clear. Organization: E. Its not organized. If you copy the article information for the wiki article already made, right onto your sandbox it will put it in a format, and then you can add subtitles; for example Natural Selection can be a subtitle and you can put the explanation of why its used for offspring. Presentation: I don't know if there are any pictures you can find for offspring maybe find a picture of parents and their children to show what an offspring is. Technical: D. Spelling and grammer looks good but structure can be fixed. For example: For natural selection to occur in a population, several conditions must be met: • Individuals in the population must produce more offspring than can survive. • Those individuals must have different characteristics. • Some characteristics must be passed on from parents to offspring. Its easier to read when you put each bullet point on its own line. Contribution/Length: C. I think you added great information to the article. You can possibly add more to the definition of offspring, though. It just needs to be organized better and use subtitles. In-text citations: E. Wikipedia has information on how to use in text citations. You should also include more information with your citation instead of just the title of the book, also include the author and page number, etc. References: E. Like I said above add more information for your reference. Also make sure to include all references for all the information. forsyth.amberForsyth.amber (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback by Nana Smith
Judging by the original article I can see there was little information on the topic, and by comparing it to your sandbox, I’ve noticed that you’ve expanded on it quite a bit. However, the information is not well organized. There are no headings to separate your information. Nor does it contain a context box. Although I think you may have put it by accident, you should definitely remove: “My name is Laura Gamby. I enjoy watching football. My favorite football team is the San Diego Chargers.”, for it will not be included in the article. I saw that you included a source: Biology for Dummies, but you need to include in text-citations so the information you provide is accurate and reliable. I don’t know if talking about Charles Darwin and evolution really coincide with information on offspring... Maybe if you want to include a heading called, ”History” and talk about how the term was first coined and originated, it could possibly work. But good job on the research! NYSmith (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)