User talk:Gasawyer17

Welcome!

Hello, Gasawyer17, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Week 3 Feedback

Hi Gabby. Good work finding food sources. I see that you had trouble finding the article's talk page. I will try to remember to review this a little more in class. Keep plugging away at it. You are doing great. KHillWells (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Week 5 Feedback

Gabby, You can delete that section from the sandbox where you were learning to evaluate the article. It just clutters KHillWells (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Week 7 Feedback

Hi Gabby,

• I see that you have not edited the article in the sandbox yet. Please start editing soon.
• There are a good number of citations for this article. I didn't go through them all but eventually you should check the validity and the links to all of them.
• Think about adding some more relevant sections. Maybe one on Flora and Fauna

Lead section

I think this section is actually good. I can't see any additions right now but as you expand the article, you may update this section.

Differences between marshes and swamps section

I like that this section is there because it really clarifies things for the reader. I am not sure that I love the reference here. Maybe a Cowardin classification reference would be better. I think this section could be improved and expanded.

Geomorphology and hydrology section

There are no references here and they should be added. Hydrology, in particular is essential in wetlands, and should be expanded on.

Draining

I would change the name of this section to "Impacts" and talk a about additional impacts other than draining, although draining is the main one and the most space should be dedicated to it. It also seems like this section naturally flows into a new section that should be called "Conservation and Restoration"

Land value, productivity, and conservation section

Again, I think the name of this section is weird. I would rename it to something like "Values and Ecosystem Services". There should be a good bit of information about this topic in textbooks (which you have) and on the internet. This section and the section before it are a little mixed up together so I would work on separating them and then adding the new Conservation Restoration section

Notable Examples

I think in this section too much attention is being paid to North America and Asia. I think the Asian section has too much random detail. The way I envision this section is just having some brief blurbs about the MOST important swamps on each continent and a few sentences about each. The links are really good and the reader could follow them to learn more.

List of major swamps section

This section looks good to me. I would just reconfigure the section above it and move some of the less notable wetlands from there into this section. Leave the notable wetlands to one or two per continent.

I gave you a lot to work with. Just remember to publish your changes frequently when you edit and every time you do, write a summary of what you did, so that someone can follow along. When you answer any of my comments here, make sure to use the colon to start your answer. This will indent your text so it can be easily differentiated from mine KHillWells (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Week 8 Peer Review- Mike Compagni

Hello Gabby,

The first impression I get with your article is that it doesn't have a very good tone, it seems a bit neutral. It doesn't really grab my attention when reading the lead section. I think the tone doesn't change throughout the article either. The lead section seems good information wise but maybe change up the tone if you can to somehow grab people's attention and bring them in to read the article. The difference between marshes and swamps section is good because it provides clarity to people who don't know much about either but I feel that section can be added to. The Geomorphology and Hydrology section needs a citation(s) and I feel you should define what each of those words mean because many people won't understand those words without a definition. I noticed the Draining Section talks a lot about what humans have done to wetlands, so maybe changing the heading to "human impacts" may sound better. The Land Value, Productivity and Conservation section is good information wise but I feel like changing the heading to "Preservation of Swamps" may sound better. The Notable Examples section is a bit too much to me, shorten it up a bit and I think it will flow better. I really like the List of Major Swamps section because it links you to other examples. Hope my comments make sense to you and will help you out. Good Luck! Mike CompagniMike Compagni (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A few comments on Mike's comments: I think Mike got a little carried away with his suggestion for an exciting, intriguing, grabby article :) Wikipedia REQUIRES that the tone of the articles stay neutral because the point here is to convey information in a neat and summarized way, NOT to grab attention and make someone really drawn in. In terms of defining Geomorphology and Hydrology, you can create links between those words and other Wikipedia articles on that topic if you want. KHillWells (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Week 8 Peer Review

Hey Gabby,

• As far as content I feel like adding more pictures under the notable swamps category could be used.
• Under the land value category, I think giving specifics of threats to swamps would be useful. Like give examples of threats to the notable swamps in that category.

SjminarikWells (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHillWells (talk • contribs)