User talk:Mike Compagni

Welcome!
Hello, Mike Compagni, 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) 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Week 2: Evaluating an Article
Hi Mike, I see that you have done the training and tutorials but you have yet to finish evaluating an article. You still have time, but I just wanted to mention this to give you practice reading your Talk page and to remind you in case you may have forgotten or misunderstood the assignment. KHillWells (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Week 5 Feedback
Michael, I think you copied the article into your sandbox incorrectly It should have all the same headings and edits that the original article has but yours is just plain text. Did you go to the Edit button of the Aquatic Plant article and copy from there? Since it is a larger article, it micht also be easier do copy and paste it in sections. I think you should re-copy it sooner than later before you make too many edits. Come see me if you have any trouble. KHillWells (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Week 7 Feedback
Michael, I see that you have not edited much beyond just copying the article into your sandbox. I know that it is a pretty big article and it probably seems daunting, but try to just jump in. Some comments based on what I see:

Lead section:
This section is pretty good. I would maybe add short sentences about macrophytes being primary producers, about the fact that they have strong effects on water and soil chemistry, light levels. Maybe add a sentence or two about how macrophytes are not algae or how they differ from algae. I do think that all the mention of helophytes is too much for the lead section. I think someone was just excited about helophytes and started adding that in, but I think that gets too technical. I would add floating-leaved plants to this section and remove helophytes. I think any mention of helophytes can be moved further down to a more detailed section about emergent, submerged, floating, floating leaved.

Distribution Section:
All the information here is accurate and good. It can be greatly expanded if you are interested. Just a lot more detail can be added here. I have the source that they used (7) in my office. A textbook by Keddy.

Evolution Section:
This section doesn't make sense to me. The first sentence is great but then it no longer talks about evolution. It just talks about random facts. I would seriously edit this section.

Classification of macrophytes section:
This section is asking for citations and I think you can provide. You should have no trouble finding textbooks, government websites, and journal articles on this topic. Come to my office to pick out some textbooks. I am not sure about the text "pierces the surface" for emergents. I think that could be re-written. The last part on emergent plants should be re-written. It's all over the place. i think you should definitely mention the most common emergent plants, but I don't understand the reference to fens. Fens are pretty rare habitat types and irrelevant here.

Overall you can add a lot to this section. A lot more detail about each plant type and what the advantages and disadvantages are of that strategy and what they look like and who likes to use them and make lists of the most common plants in each category and link them to existing Wikipedia articles.

Morphological classification section:
This section is getting really technical. I would not worry about editing this. You have enough on your plate. They seem to provide good references here.

Functions of macrophytes in aquatic system section:
This section is well written and has good sources. You can definitely add more detail here but it's not necessary.

Uses and importance section:
(Maybe re-name this section "Uses and importance to humans", what do you think?). This section could be expanded. I would change the sub-section "Watershed health indicators" to "Bioassessment" and look up literature on bioassessment using macrophytes. There is a great deal of research and information on this topic and you can add and expand here. EPA articles on this topic are really good. I will email you one or two.

I gave you a lot to work with. Just remember to publish your changes frequently and every time you do, write a summary of what you did, so that someone can follow along. When you answer any of my comments here, make sure to use the colon to start your answer. This will indent your text so it can be easily differentiated from mine. Good luck KHillWells (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Professor Hill. Sorry it's taken me so long to answer back, been busy with other school work. Thank you for all the information. I have a question about "citation needed". How should I approach that? Should I try finding a source that fits with that sentence? or should I delete that sentence and just add my own? My article has at least one "citation needed". hopefully my question makes sense. Thank you.
 * Hi Mike. First you should sign all of your posts, even on your talk page. Second, it doesn't really matter which direction you choose to address the "citation needed" issue. If you feel the statement is well written, you can just try to find a citation for it. But if you feel that the whole statement or even the whole section needs to be re-written, then go ahead and re-write and then cite the appropriate sources. It really is up to you. Thanks for answering. KHillWells (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Professor Hill. Thank you for the clarification. Mike Compagni (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Week 8 Evaluation
Hi Mike! I think your article already has a very good start with a lot of information. With a very broad topic like yours, the sections make it very easy to read and categorize information. I see that we are in the same boat: a lot of information we have learned in class can be added to your article, but the tricky thing is to decide what to add. I think the lead section is really good, straight forward and informative. There are so many aspects that you could talk about in this article. Compared to the live article, I think the information you have added this far is a good addition to the article. It is also nice to see that it has pictures as well! I would say keep adding and expanding on to the sections that are there! I think this is a really good start! CheyNow21 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Cheyenne! At least I spelled your name right this time lol! Thank you for your feedback, it's appreciated. Mike Compagni (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 8
Hi Mike! First off, there is some really great stuff in the article. It has a neutral tone, which is very important. The pictures that are in the article do a good job supporting the information while providing a visual so the readers can understand what is being described. I would consider expanding some of the sections within the article and supporting them with citations. Like section about distribution it is very brief and doesn't provide a lot of detail. I feel like your sections are well organized, just adding some more description to them would be the next step! Overall, there is a lot of great stuff to work with! Keep up the good work! Bethymm15 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHillWells (talk • contribs)