Talk:Tail biting in pigs

Peer Review
Hi Jenna!

First of all, I hope I found the right article that you are working on. For some reasons, there is no talk page set up for the article. If I do find the right one, it seems like you are starting your own article. It is definitely a great accomplishment! - I wish I have the guts to start from scratch.

The first thing that is impressive is the overall structure. Typically, as a reader, I always scroll down to see the structure of article before diving into it. It pretty much has all the information I might be looking for. My only concern is if you have sufficient source to actually fill in. Forgive my ignorance, it seems like tail biting is one of the smaller scope topic. The lead section is very concise and well worded. I think you did a really good job to keep a neutral standpoint in such an interesting topic. If it was me writing the article, I would definitely mix my own feelings into it - which is bad for WikiPedia.

I sees where you are going with your article after breaking down the type of tail bitings, but as I mentioned above, it seems like there are a lot more information to fill in. I would recommend you to cut down the topic to Cause, Industry Effect and Prevention and management. I think the rest of the topics could be included in these three parts. Another thing that caught my eyes is there are a few hyperlinks that seem not quite relevant, such as abnormal or farm. I would recommend you remove all of irrelevant links while adding some for more complicated terminologies, which could also help your explanations.

I checked all of your six sources at the bottom of the page. They are all relatively new and certainly meet the standards of WikiPedia's requirements. As long as you make sure to paraphrasing and properly cited, you should be no problem regards plagiarism.

I hope you have fun working on your article. I am learning as I reading and reviewing your article. Good job and good luck!

Haitaoyu (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Janna! I think you have an awesome start to your article. You do many things very well in terms of formatting, highlighting on important facts regarding your topic along with the way you breakdown the information. I was very impressed with how you defined everything. As a reader, it made it very beneficial and easy to stay focused on the article while being informed about the topics. Overall, your content is great and you do a really nice job of paraphrasing the researched material and citing it throughout your work.

If I had to pick something to change, which was hard for me to do, I would say that you have a lot of topics with a small amount of information for each. Overall your content load is great as of now but maybe finding a way to combine some topic areas just so its not as broken up but instead flows from topic to topic. Find the most important headings and then include the content from there.

You have a phenomenal start and to me it looks very professional and appropriate for a Wikipedia page. I look to include much more of your organization when it comes to my article because I feel as though you did a nice job of covering you researched material. Awesome start and I look forward to seeing the final product!

Ashley oconnell (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Ashley O'Connell