User talk:Tyler Johnson32/sandbox

Responses to Feedback - Tyler
Dr. Schutz, I agree our layout on my sandbox is confusing. I will be consulting my team members and using the example you posted to try and keep our thought more organized and clear. Also, will work on contextualizing the sources in a more clear way rather than just listing.

Cassidy- Note taken on the layout- I agree. I think exploring the cost/benefit trade-offs of the way Amia use their scales would be a great addition to the fish scale page and the Amia page.

Lexie- I agree on the layout that is number one of the to do list so far. And we will work on fulling fleshing out our claims with sufficient evidence.

Blanca- The book you mentioned by PS Verma sounds super useful! I will see if the library has that text or is able to get it through inter-library loan.

Going forward I am going to primarily focus on the organization of the sandbox, making sure claims are fully supported and exploring more fully the evolutionary history of the fish scales and the different strategies.

Amia

GENERAL: -You are going to want to start organizing your sandbox so that things are easier to find and the space is easier for you and everyone else to navigate. Here is an example of how you can do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ayersmm/sandbox.

-Start embedding the urls for the pages you are editing. That makes it easier for you to get feedback from anyone on your proposed changes because it enables rapid navigation to the relevant page. That will help you as well and make it easy to navigate to talk pages as needed. You do this in some of the work, but not all of it.

-Keep working on SHOWING in addition to TELLING. I like that for the most part, you do more than just list sources. Keep asking yourselves: "How are other Wikipedians supposed to assess that these are good sources?" If you don't put the sources in context, how can that happen? What sorts of relevant information do they contain that will help you add needed content (also, what is that needed content?)? This becomes particularly critical when you post to the talk pages. Effective writers guide their readers rather than ask them to divine what the author's meaning and intention is.

-There was only one post to a talk page although all of your sections (and as a consequence all of you) should have had something to post. Remember that the talk pages are a great place to get feedback, clarification and even help. Use them.

-Remember that you are a team. Each of you is responsible for taking the lead on your independent sections, but then you compile them as a team in this sandbox. That means that you do more than just copy and paste things here. In this space you will: -Try to use parallel structure in the content of your group sandbox. It makes it easier to navigate and understand. There is some parallel structure here already, but it could use more. Using it will allow you to: -Help each other improve your individual contributions. This includes the general content that lives in the sandbox, but also the content that then goes "live". For example, I saw another group use this space to edit the talk posts they wanted to make. Tyler posted a note in this sandbox about his talk page post, that will be useful as he gets feedback. If all of you do that, it will help you edit those posts for maximum effectiveness.

SPECIFIC:

Please see the above as all are relevant. --One specific suggestion I have is to do a literature search on the scales of Amia and see what the most recent findings show regarding the classification of their scales. This specific "contradiction" that you found is EXACTLY why Wikipedia exists...but it is only valuable when reputable up-to-date sources are listed and interpreted by biologists like you. Great Find and a perfect example of showing instead of telling.

Osquaesitor (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review/ Copy Edit
Overall: I think the sandbox was a little hard to navigate, but you guys had a lot of really good information. Maybe just cleaning it up a bit, I couldn’t quite tell who was the lead on what. Also contextualizing the sources you have might be a good step, that way you already have the information you want pulled from the article for future use.

The gas bladder is really interesting, and I think you have a good start on the anatomy of the bladder and how its connected to sound detection. I noticed on the swim bladder page a section for risk of injury due to loud sounds. Are you going to add anything to this section? I think that would be a really interesting addition.

Regarding the scales, now that we have learned a bit more about scale development, are you going to address the way that the Bowfin use their scales (i.e. low cost/ high cost, evasion, protection)? Good catch on the inaccurate information!

You have a really extensive section on the morphology of the bowfin, the last paragraph of which seems to specifically address the structures or characteristics that you all are focusing on. The discussion on the chondrocranium and dermatocranium is interesting, but it looks you might need a bit more sources. Also consolidating the information on the topics would also be helpful. Hobbscassidy (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
There is a lot of really great and useful information here. I agree with the above review that reorganizing will really strengthen this page and game plan. I think maybe grouping all of your information you have on one part of the Amia might help. That way its all in one place and not somewhat scattered.

I really like where you're going with the gas bladder and focusing on respiration in the Amia. There are a lot of good sources given here. However, there isn't much of a discussion about what you would like to add about the gas bladder or learn more about.

All of the information you're looking to add to the bowfin page is informational and useful. I think condensing it and rethinking what specifically you want to add to the page itself might help with your end game plan. Also, like it was said above, I do agree with maybe finding some more sources to back up your information for this part. Very detailed and well thought out information though! Lexiehiggins (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review/Copy Edit!
Tyler: Your overall changes seem very neutral. Do you have a citation that you could use in your edit of the cycloid scales? I assume that you found out the information listed about cycloid scales from some source, as their transparent nature and the physiological purpose in reference to showing off the coloration of fish may not be considered common knowledge. Your additions are clear and concise, but maybe incorporating them into a broader overall theme to your changes might brush up some of the direction of your edits. You're going in a good direction, though! Also, fix the name of the author of the third citation in your sandbox.

Blanca: I know that you linked the Weberian apparatus in the explanation of your draft direction, but make sure that you actually cite it in the draft itself unless it is previously cited in the article that you're editing. Your edits appear neutral. I think that as long you continue to make your edit more concise and continue to research the topic further to see if you can uncover then your edit will go nicely.

Emily: I'm assuming that your section is the general morphological editing of the Bowfin page. Your edit seems to be neutral for the most part but is lacking any and all citations. I saw that you're drawing most of your information from the class textbook, which is acceptable, but just make sure you make your in-text citations in your actual draft. One change that I would recommend you looking into doing is changing the times where you used numbers for digits under ten instead of typing them out (4-6 weeks after hatching; the roof of the mouth is made up of 3 bones...) because I am not sure if using numbers in this scenario is the right choice.

General comments: as said previously, the formatting of the sandbox is really hard to follow, so it was difficult in assigning what work was belonging to each group member. Continue to research sources to back up your informational claims, and continue to direct your edits along the themes that you've currently established, and the edits should be very successful!

KoreanBobsledder (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
General thoughts and comments: As stated above, your sandbox is a hard to navigate and organizing it to look less scattered will make it overall a strong game plan. I feel like you have a lot of relevant information that will contribute very well to the various pages. I think that having a few more citations or resources for your information may be useful also.

The morphology of the Bowfin edit is very in-depth but easy to follow. As stated above, you would benefit from adding more sources to the support the information being provided. For the sake of the class and over all assignment it may or may not be a good idea to narrow your focus down some. In regards to the dissection of the specimen what anatomical structures will you be focusing on?

I like how the fish scale section offers what specifically if being changed. The cycloid scales section does not appear to have a citation though. Maybe a good addition to this section would be to explain how each is beneficial to the organism.

As mentioned by others the gas bladder is not only an interesting topic but the section is laid out nicely and you have a good amount of sources.

Ahyneman (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Peer Reviews:
-Read these comments carefully and compare them to the feedback posted for you on Sakai on the content of your first draft under Resources and Wikipedia Assignments Feedback. There is a folder there for your team.Osquaesitor (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Scales of Amia
Hey Tyler, I was doing a little bit of research for possible sources for my draft and I found a book on google that briefly mentions that in the head of the Amia there are some ganoid scales. I search on google (amia gas bladder sound wave) and the book is called chordate zoology by P.S. Verma. You can see some pages of the book for free but in order to see the entire book you have to purchase it. But at least the part that I mention above can be seen without purshing it. For our dissection we can try removing some of the scales in the head and compare them to the ones in the body to see if they are really ganoid scales. I hope this helps!! Blancapaola2 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)