User talk:TheLazyWaffle

Welcome!
Hello, TheLazyWaffle, 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) 16:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.
Please complete the assigned training modules. --SparrowGrrl (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review for Rufous hummingbird Additions in Sandbox Mjoh364 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Mjoh364
Hey! I have done the peer review on your article additions to the Rufous hummingbird, overall really good job!

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 added information on physiology is very detailed and will make a very good addition to the main article. The wording is very detailed and concise which is perfect for the article.

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

-In the added information, where it talks about the pectoralis and supracoracoideus muscles, I would maybe explain what those muscles are and where they are located on the Rufous hummingbird. I personally have never heard of those muscles before and I’m guessing that many readers will want to know what they are so I think a short description about these muscles in the description section would be a good add too.

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

-The most important thing you could do to improve the article is to add this new information in the new a new section labeled “Physiology.” This would open doors for more people to add information about the physiology of the Rufous hummingbird.

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

-After reviewing the article, a distribution map of my animal (the sea otter) would be a great add to my article.

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 present sections in the article are well organized and in a good order. From your work in the sandbox I am assuming that you are adding another section called “Physiology” but you did not state where. If I were adding this information I would add the new section between migration and the hovering mechanics, metabolism, and sexual dimorphism sections.

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?

-The length of the sections in the original article is equal to the importance of the subject, had a big focus on hovering mechanisms, metabolism, and sexual dimorphism. The new added section you are adding would further enhance this information and is a good length with room to add more.

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

-The article does not try to convince the reader to accept a point of view. Neither does the new section you are adding, it was very factual and straightforward.

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."

-The article all together has a neutral tone and contained no negative associations, including the new added section.

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?

-Both sources for the new information are reliable journal articles making them excellent sources to add to the article.

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.

-In the original article, the information comes from a variety of sources which is good. In the new added section, the information coming from the two sources you found and was pretty well balanced between the two. I would say maybe add one more sentence to your added section from the second source if possible.

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!

-I checked many of the sources information and the information can be found in the references at the bottom of the original article. All information in the new physiology section was sourced by the two references, overall very good job!

Mjoh364 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Mjoh364

Peer Review for Rufous hummingbird Additions in Sandbox Bcradd1
Hey, I've written your peer review for your edit to Rufous hummingbird. I think you did a very good job, I just suggested some minor editing for flow and clarity ★ Bcradd1 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I just realized im also supposed to put the questions here
 * 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?
 * a.	It presents good information; I like that it relates the mitochondria to capillaries as a factor as well as telling the volume


 * 2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * a.	It could use some restructuring for better flow


 * 3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * a.	Just restructuring for flow, clarity is okay


 * 4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
 * a.	no


 * 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?
 * a.	Yes, it will probably fit well


 * 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?
 * a.	Yes, I think so. Nothing off topic


 * 7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * a.	It is neutral


 * 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."
 * a.	It is neutral


 * 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?
 * a.	Yes, they cite journal articles


 * 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.
 * a.	It doesn’t seem unbalanced


 * 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!
 * a.	no
 * Bcradd1 (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)