User talk:NoahMcGoff/Cephalochordates Group Assignment

GUIDANCE ON NEXT STEPS
All, your plans look good! This page may be helpful to those of you wanting to use different highlighting etc. to identify your edits You can have original text and then new material highlighted like this Osquaesitor (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Cephalocordologists Peer Review

Abby: "With the presence of a notochord, adult amphioxus are able to swim and tolerate the tides of coastal environments, but they are most likely to be found within the sediment of these communities."

- Information is properly cited from a reliable source

- Not sure what you mean by "communities" in the second sentence

"They are only a few centimeters in length and due to their lack of a mineralized skeleton, their presence in the fossil record is minimal."

- I like the replacement of the statement "no hard parts"

- Consider keeping mention of the found in old rocks predating vertebrates if you can find some source for it

Noah: - I like the reorganization of the wheel organ information

- My biggest issue is just that I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what changes were made and trying to see what information was different

- I see your changes to the intro in Abby's section which is nice, good collaboration.

" Chordates get their name from their characteristic “notochord”, which plays a significant role in chordate structure and movement"

- I don't know if this flows right here, I like the statement but it feels jammed into the paragraph

Katelyn: - Would your morphological inclusion go directly after the ending of Noah's section?

-Is "studies have shown necessary" I think you can just make that statement then make sure the study is linked (looks like you have that already)

"These projections are chemoreceptors that stimulate the epithelial cilia lining inside the walls of the oral hood to bring food particles into the mouth"

- Add a link to the chemoreceptors page here (if that exists)

Overall it looks great guys, I'm impressed by the collaboration all on one page and I love the info you've added. McKenzieKay (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review for Cephalochordates
Overall group box feedback: There's some really good editing going on in this sandbox! It was a bit challenging for me to follow who was working on what at times. It's awesome that you are all collaborating on topics, but it could be helpful to each draft what you individually are working on and keep it under your own heading. The "old" and "new" was a little challenging to follow mainly because it was hard to see exactly what was being changed. Great image at the bottom of your work! Overall, I love that you guys are working together and I'm excited to see what you guys add to this page in the near future!

Abby Denn: Really great start here on editing! Your citations are looking awesome, and appear to be properly formatted. Creating subheadings for the sections you are editing would be helpful in navigating edits. I love that you added, "with the presence of a notochord, adult amphioxus are able to swim and tolerate the tides of coastal environments, but they are most likely to be found within the sediment of these communities" but I was thinking this could possibly be moved under a separate section for notochord? This paragraph sounds more like a broad intro to what the five synapomorphies of cephalochordates are, so ultimately omitting going into too much detail. Great job rewording and paraphrasing your edits! Your writing is very clear and concise.

Noah McGoff: Awesome job so far! Try and really focus on highlighting and making clear the changes that you made. For the five synapomorphies, it would be really helpful for you to make each synapomorphy and individual subheading so that it has it's own paragraph as this would help with the overall structure/organization of your section. Also, another suggestion I'd make is possibly expanding upon your morphology section. I know it is still early, but it would be great to see a little more elaboration in this part.

Katelyn Thompson: Great start! Your addition to the morphology section is very good, and I'm excited to see what else you come up with! For that section in particular, it would be really helpful if you created subheadings for each element of morphology that you are planning on talking about. Doing so will make your work a lot easier to follow and draft! For your second proposed edit, I think this section could be really great if you collaborated with Noah to fuse these two sections together. Focus on being concise. Sometimes less is more! Focus on finding some more sources to help build on your sections and expand your writing!

AlyssaJordan (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review: Cyah Dade
Abby: the organization is methodical and clear

it was nice to see the before and after of your edits

the way that you shortened the paragraph in a way that still preserves the information is well done

the sentences tend to seem a little long, like run on, consider potentially adding some commas or separating sentences or using shorter words

overall, job well done!!

Noah: your organization is very clear

consider not starting your feeding section with a quote

your references look good

your work is well thought out, good job!

Katelyn: the section looks to be well organized

I am a bit confused as to what you were editing/adding to the page itself, are you editing Noah's work?

your edits are well thought out and done

consider asking more references

overall, good job!! CyahDade (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review:
PEER REVIEW WEEK 8- Cephalochordate[edit] ABBY-

- you do a great job including other wikipedia articles into your paragraph. this is definitely something I need to contribute into my draft.

- I believe Asymmetron lucayanum need to be italicized

- the new edits a more concise and well cited

Noah

- Do you plan on continuing the morphology section?

- You did really well on citing your statements in your edits

- The intro paragraph is well written and well cited where needed.

- Since the intro section mentions the 5 synapomorphies it would be helpful to the page to discuss these more in depth in an additional section.

Katelyn

- I think the feeding section is written out really well.

- Feeding section needs citations

- also referencing other wikipedia articles could be helpful IreneIIS (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Review by Kanessa192
The level of collaboration here is impressive, but it’s a bit hard to follow all the changes that are happening. Something I’ve seen other people doing (in addition to posting the original text along with their edited version) is highlight the sentence they’ve added or modified while leaving some of the surrounding original text for context; you guys seem to be keeping track of it well but this might be helpful for any future reviews... or maybe add a ‘final draft’ section for the week with the most up-to-date content you have.

Overall, your contributions look really good in terms of being unbiased and drawing from strong sources. I think the diagram of the oral hood that you want to add is a great idea! Maybe label specific structures – even just as points (A, B, C, etc.) that you can reference in your text. There might be some overlap with what my group (Lampreyologists) is doing in that we’re both discussing synapomorphies; maybe we’ll link to one of your sections! I noticed that some other people mentioned possibly creating a new section for each of the synapomorphies, and I agree that this would fit well in your article since it’s meant to be an overview of these structures, but based on what you’ve linked, it looks like the post-anal tail is the only thing that doesn’t yet have its own page and you’d need to be careful about duplicating information.

Abby, your second edit makes this paragraph a lot more concise! The citations all look good and it’s great that you’re linking to so many different pages. Noah – very thorough coverage of the oral hood; I’m impressed that you’re tackling multiple pages. Do you plan to expand the morphology section or blend it into something that’s already on the page? Katelyn, great information for the feeding section as well. It looks like you guys have added to each other’s edits and included more citations for that part, and overall this is really interesting!

Kanessa192 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Review by Janet Chen
Neutral Content: The wording in each of your drafts are all really good, it focuses on the information and doesn't use judgement statements.

Reliable Sources: The sources mentioned are from textbooks or journals. There is a big variety of them on each of your topics, it shows in your draft that it is well informed/detailed.

Clear Structure: As others are mentioning, it's hard to follow what are the edits about. A section that explains if your drafts are rewrites or whole new sections you've made. However, it's clear what each of you are writing for the page and both of you put a great amount of effort and information into your drafts. Even though the sources are listed, the only missing piece would be to add the cited sources in your drafts. Images of the body parts or diagrams about their anatomy would be helpful to go along with the information.

"Link to my Work'': There isn't anything related to my work on birds but the content being made has given me a better idea on how to research and draft good sections on my own. 77lemonpie (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)