User talk:Jmoore31

This user is a student editor in University_of_Central_Arkansas/Advanced_Evolution_(Spring_2019) .

Welcome!

Hello, Jmoore31, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia 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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Jordan! Overall, I like the overall content and what you're going for, but have a few notes on the organization: the first section "symmorphosis" should not be under a heading because it is the lead. The lead should give an overview of what you'll discuss in the rest of the article, which it doesn't do. Keep the first section "Three predictions...", then put "Critiques" section, then put the example and call it something like "Example: mammalian respiratory system". Then, all the parts of the critique section about the oxygen pathway can be moved into the example section as an example of how the critiques apply to a real system. I would also add a section called "Evolutionary implications" and put your final paragraph there and expand upon it. It doesn't belong in the critiques section. There are also a lot of incomplete sentences and changes in tense within your article which makes it difficult to read... be sure to go back and check these grammar issues =) Esallinger1 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Peer Review

Hi Jordan, The article is looking good so far! I put in a few comments, my main suggestion would be to comb back through to check for grammatical errors, because I found a few. There are a few sections that I noted might benefit from being broken into smaller sub-sections, because I personally find it easier to read when articles are broken down like that, however that is more personal taste. But it is definitely looking good and is an informative article! Lang1803 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review review

Hi Jordan! I think your article is coming along nicely. I'm sorry you only ended up with two peer reviews, but I think the reviewers did a great job, and if you can respond to many of your comments, then it will improve your article. The most important is to make sure your lead section conforms to the Wikipedia definition of was a lead section should be (an overall summary of your article). I agree with the suggestions on some reorganization, and just make sure to do a final check for grammar and typos. Nice job! Advevol (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I appreciate all the feedback that I received. I made all of the edits that were suggested and I am really glad that you all brought up breaking up my oxygen pathway section. I also rearranged where my evolutionary implications section is now placed. The only feedback I did not take is inserting an image due to the issue that none of my sources had images therefore putting in an image would be difficult. I did add links in to help understand some of there terms as well as the different science fields that there were pages on wikipedia for.