User talk:Mph105/Lake Waccamaw

For Wikipedia you do not need to have in-text citations, that is what the little numbers are for

It would seem that you're going over topics that are already on the wiki article page, though with a little more detail

External review by a Wikipedian

Hi @Mph105: I was asked to take a look at what has been drafted for inclusion in Lake Waccamaw since I've been helping revamp the WikiProject Lakes project and working on Lakes in EN Wikipedia. The following are some points to address before merging this text to the main article space.

Agree with statements above from your peer review, the inline citation such as (Burgess 2018) can be left out and you're using the preferred citation with the <ref> tags
Definitions such as "Endemic species are those particular species of organisms that are only found in one particular location and nowhere else in the world (Hubbs and Raney 1946)." are better off served as links to the related article on the subject if it exists rather than defining the term if common to the subject area in the article.
The fish found in the lake would be good places to link to existing articles or leave redlinks where a new article should be created for the species. "These endemic fish are the Waccamaw Darter, Waccamaw Silverside" especially with the "Waccamaw Darter (Etheostoma perlongu)"
Double check your citations - Burgess 2018 is missing the source date of 2018 and the editor's first name, and the date you accessed the URL. These help others track down the source when the link breaks. Hubbs and Raney names and date are not properly split into the citation fields and need to be separated. As well as Shute et al. 1982 needs to be properly split into the form fields. If you are editing via the "edit" not "edit source" the citation fields that should be split or filled are listed there or can be added. If you're editing the source directly or just want some guides - WP:CITEWEB or WP:CITE more generally might help and clicking through to the web template or others may explain a field better.

The more general thing that this draft has me thinking about is where and how is this text going to be integrated in the main article? Which existing section(s) might the statements be placed or can some of the carriage returns be removed to make a few more substantive paragraphs? The content seems to mostly fit within Aquatic life in Lake Waccamaw and expanding upon existing content is a contribution, but making sure it fits in the scope of the article is part of the balance. There are definitely other areas of contribution that this article could receive such as information about the lake volume, shore, and other items not listed in the Infobox if a source is available. If you're looking for other ideas of contribution you might look at the WikiProject Lakes assessments for articles GA or FA for ideas too for what else are often added when available. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]