ThePolarBear

For you!

Cheers! Blueboombox (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ThePolarBear, 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) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! and Peer review

Hi thepolarbear, we're in a peer review group together along with rember glia and jcolls4. How do you want to set up the rotation? I can review jcolls4 and remember, for starters. Also, I'm behind on editing my article. I can have that done by tonight, but right now it's the same as my reference. Thanks GreenMacaw (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Notes

Hello thepolarbear, I'm one of the peers who is reviewing your page. I hope you find some of my feedback helpful! Overall this is a good new addition to Wikipedia. You may want to look into finding a different word to define the interplay between sleep and emotion than bi-directionally in the first sentence as by my reading the word implies more of moving in one of two directions than a feed back and forth between them. The first sentence of the second paragraph under “Sleep, Emotions, and Psychiatric Ailments” could probably be cut as it is functionally a reiteration and the transition is not necessary. The general organization of the article is good. Under “Support for the Fatigue Model” heading, in the first sentence you may want to list physiological studies before subjective self-report studies as the former is the stronger evidence. While both pictures add nice visual flair to the page, they are not hugely helpful. The second “emotions” picture in particular feels a bit out of place, seeming more to be a sort of visual thesaurus than a scientific descriptor, and even the emotions listed to not seem like they are relevant. I would recommend considering removing or replacing this image. Remember glia (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello everyone! Thank you very much for your messages. I am working on getting everyone their peer review at the moment, and hope to have that up A.S.A.P..

Additionally, thank you Remember glia for your extremely helpful feedback. I will work on incorporating all your suggestions and edits to improve my article.

Thanks again. Will be in touch with your peer reviews soon!

Best, -ThePolarBearThePolarBear (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

As mentioned during the in class-discussion, these article are inherently difficult to write and thus I will do my best to help improve the structure of the article along with content and grammar as I see fit.

Firstly, I think the removal of the first person in the article could help mitigate some subjectivity (i.e 'our'). In the second paragraph I believe the phrase 'Literature examining' can be excised and just have the sentence begin with 'The effects...'. In that same paragraph it may be helpful/facilitate the reader to link to another page which focuses on cortical structures in the brain. Similarly in the 'Support for Dysregulation Model' subheading, I do not believe the link for photographs is necessary.

There is a small typo (preform should be perform).

Since the models seem to be the main portions of the article it may be helpful to have those subheadings under a more general "Sleep and Emotional Models" main header, and provide some introductory information prior to delving into the models (That information is mostly in the intro).

Overall, the article was well-written and had a great deal of scientific information. The citations were placed correctly and helped aid the objectivity of the article.

-Jcolls4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)