User talk:NK1296

Welcome!
Hello, NK1296, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review Word Document Questions
Article you are reviewing: Gulf killifish (NK1296)

1.	First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

-	The Gulf killifish article does a pretty good job at touching all areas related to the fish. A description of the fish was provided, detailed habitat information and toxicology, along with the relation to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. -	User NK1296 does a good job with picking a topic that is relevant to the overall Gulf killifish article.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

-	I think a good change to the Gulf killifish article would be good. Under the habitat section, it goes into things relating to the physiology of the fish. Like them requiring salinity, dissolved oxygen, and a certain temperature to best lay eggs. I don’t feel like this belongs under habitat, but maybe it does. Also, if someone adds a physiology section to explain why the fish requires certain salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen levels, that would be beneficial. -	User NK1296 does not specifically state where in the article he/she is going to put the information, so I would suggest making a new section (including the subsections: salinity ranges, temperatures, dissolved oxygen) after the habitat section. I’m not sure what the name of the section would be, but the information they decided to add would be a good first part to the new section and the subsections listed above would follow really well.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

-	User NK1296 could state the cultural study by name because it is kind of confusing to start the information with “This cultural study shows” because I don’t know what study they are talking about. I would also delete “after hatching” because I think that “the age of 0-14 days” is good enough. The author could add a hyperlink to another Wikipedia article for hypo-osmotic tolerance because this is something that a reader may not know the meaning of off the top of their head.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

-	Yes, I noticed that User NK1296 only cited the source once because all of his/her sentences pertained to that one source. I cited the same source after every sentence, so I think I should change this.

5.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it?

-	The user did not mention where he/she is going to put the information in his/her sandbox, so I am not sure if it would be in the logical place or not.

6.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

-	I feel like the Gulf killifish article has a lot of information on color and body structure. None the less, the article does a good job with the lengths of each section. Each section is divided into subsections and this really helps with the organization of the article.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

-	No, it does not. It seems to state facts.

8.	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."

-	User said “The study also proves” and I the article may very well had proved this, but I think it may be safer to put something like shows or demonstrated or maybe even concluded.

9.	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?

-	Most statements are supported with a citation at the end of the sentence, but there are some groups of relating sentences that isn’t cited until the last sentence. This could be so the person doesn’t appear to use a source too many times. Also, when looking at the references section there appears to be a wide range of sources.

10.	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.

-	User NK1296 only cites one source, but there isn’t an exceeding number of sentences for that one source so I would say they are good.

11.	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!

-	When I went to try and find the article sourced, I couldn’t find it thorugh LSU databasaes, and I didn’t want to pay to access the pdf. So, I will just trust that the information cites is in the article. However, I did notice that this user did not use the source provided (I went to see if I could find the source in the original Wikipedia topics document, but these sources didn’t match.)

Once you have answered these questions, you should post them as a message on their User Talk page (see above for instructions on how to do that).

Jalashiareliford (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Gulf Killifish


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Gulf Killifish. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Gulf killifish. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Gulf killifish. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)