Talk:Exercise and body weight: Difference between revisions
imported>Emily Moore No edit summary |
imported>Robert Parsons No edit summary |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
I agree witht the comments above. Well done! It's a well written and well structured article. It reads really well and the 'level' of science is just right, you've understood it's an encyclopaedia article not an essay. I think the set of studies you described are really interesting. Every studies and facts are well referenced but use the citizendium references format throughout the article like you have done it in part 1.1. Im glad to see that you'll be meeting soon to add an intro and conclusion, looking forward to read your 'final' article. [[User:Celine Caquineau|Celine Caquineau]] 10:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | I agree witht the comments above. Well done! It's a well written and well structured article. It reads really well and the 'level' of science is just right, you've understood it's an encyclopaedia article not an essay. I think the set of studies you described are really interesting. Every studies and facts are well referenced but use the citizendium references format throughout the article like you have done it in part 1.1. Im glad to see that you'll be meeting soon to add an intro and conclusion, looking forward to read your 'final' article. [[User:Celine Caquineau|Celine Caquineau]] 10:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
3 oclock's fine with me. library again? |
Revision as of 10:43, 31 October 2009
Robert Parsons 12:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Katie Gallagher 17:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice selection of papers. Don't forget to detail a bit more papers 1 & 2 and keep the references format consistent.Celine Caquineau 09:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
How's the plan going? I advise you to update your work regularly. Celine Caquineau 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Feedback on your article so far
Good, well written sections with interesting information and well referenced. However, the Introduction is missing. Some diagrams would also be welcome to illustrate the text.
It is very difficult to know how much interaction happened between you as the Talk page is empty. Remember this is meant to be a team work, you need to give each other inputs and feedback, this is one of the main objectives of this tutorial. You also need to look at what other groups have done, and provide links to these in your own articles if appropriate.
Nancy Sabatier 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Really good guys! easy to read, well laid out, and not too complex! Rachael Kirkbride 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
hi guys, i think it's a good idea to use this page to communicate- could we meet a 3pm instead?- son't think i will be back by 2, thanks- i have ideas for intro and conclu. so we can put that together Katie Gallagher 10:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean at 3 on monday? 'Emily Moore 14:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)'
I agree witht the comments above. Well done! It's a well written and well structured article. It reads really well and the 'level' of science is just right, you've understood it's an encyclopaedia article not an essay. I think the set of studies you described are really interesting. Every studies and facts are well referenced but use the citizendium references format throughout the article like you have done it in part 1.1. Im glad to see that you'll be meeting soon to add an intro and conclusion, looking forward to read your 'final' article. Celine Caquineau 10:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
3 oclock's fine with me. library again?
- Article with Definition
- Health Sciences Category Check
- Developed Articles
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Health Sciences Developed Articles
- Health Sciences Advanced Articles
- Health Sciences Nonstub Articles
- Health Sciences Internal Articles
- Health Sciences Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles