 | Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
- All three sections had a "see also" listed for their species which was nice since it was a link to the various species to get further information in them rather than the quick summary we all have to give. The article overall was also good at showing images for each individual species. The years of introduction gave the reader a good idea about the length of time these species have been near North America so it was cool to get to see that in some of the sections.
- In the first paragraph I would list the Great Lakes as Lake Michigan and Lake Erie rather than "lakes Michigan and Erie" to make it sound a little less casual. All of the sections were only about negatives so maybe add a few positive things (if possible) about what the species can contribute to their environment. The Grass Carp does not explain why it is invasive so you could possibly add its effects and be a little more specific on the other species as to why they are harmful.
- I liked that you all had photos for your sections and it now makes me regret not putting one for my own so I will definitely be adding one to mine later.
- The sections make sense where they are, with the fresh water separated from the salt water. Since the salt water species are in chronological order, it is easier for people to find what they are looking for so that would not need fixing.
- Overall, these paragraphs seems to incorporate most perspectives about the species listed. Since they are invasive species it may be hard to find perspectives representing what positive effects they might have on their environment but the individual paragraphs gave a good overview of the negative perspectives of these harmful species.
- Technically it points people in the direction of the species all being harmful but that is also technically the point.
- No, there are no unnamed groups or people making claims.
- All of them seem to be coming from reliable sources and come from journals as well as books.
- The Golden Star Tunicate has several sentences involving their source 5 but the other two sections seem to be evenly done.
- All of the information that needs to be cited seems to have the proper citations with them.
| Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
- All three sections had a "see also" listed for their species which was nice since it was a link to the various species to get further information in them rather than the quick summary we all have to give. The article overall was also good at showing images for each individual species. The years of introduction gave the reader a good idea about the length of time these species have been near North America so it was cool to get to see that in some of the sections.
- In the first paragraph I would list the Great Lakes as Lake Michigan and Lake Erie rather than "lakes Michigan and Erie" to make it sound a little less casual. All of the sections were only about negatives so maybe add a few positive things (if possible) about what the species can contribute to their environment. The Grass Carp does not explain why it is invasive so you could possibly add its effects and be a little more specific on the other species as to why they are harmful.
- I liked that you all had photos for your sections and it now makes me regret not putting one for my own so I will definitely be adding one to mine later.
- The sections make sense where they are, with the fresh water separated from the salt water. Since the salt water species are in chronological order, it is easier for people to find what they are looking for so that would not need fixing.
- Overall, these paragraphs seems to incorporate most perspectives about the species listed. Since they are invasive species it may be hard to find perspectives representing what positive effects they might have on their environment but the individual paragraphs gave a good overview of the negative perspectives of these harmful species.
- Technically it points people in the direction of the species all being harmful but that is also technically the point.
- No, there are no unnamed groups or people making claims.
- All of them seem to be coming from reliable sources and come from journals as well as books.
- The Golden Star Tunicate has several sentences involving their source 5 but the other two sections seem to be evenly done.
- All of the information that needs to be cited seems to have the proper citations with them.