User:Caroleebaskin/Cathemerality/SpookyIsland Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Peer review of user Caroleebaskin by user SpookyIsland.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Caroleebaskin/Cathemerality?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cathemerality

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article’s lead has been changed and reorganized, but it does not clearly present the newly introduced topics, such as food quality, environmental factors, thermoregulation, and predator avoidance. To accompany this, the user could add a sentence or two at the end of the lead section stating and briefly describing the different influences on cathermetality. In addition, the introductory sentence is confusing and too vague. For the example, the original lead reads, “Cathemerality, sometimes called metaturnality, is an organismal activity pattern of irregular intervals during the day or night in which food is acquired, socializing with other organisms occur, and any other activities necessary for livelihood are performed.” This introductory sentence, in my opinion, is more than adequate and should not be changed. It concisely describes the topic. As stated before, the lead section does not introduce the major sections of the article. Instead, it focuses on the seasonality of cathermerality, which is not covered in the article’s main body. To combat this, it might be practical to first talk about seasonality more concisely, then create a new section covering seasonality in depth. Then, mention the four individual influences and briefly describe them towards the end of the lead section. Lastly, the lead section seems too long because of the heavy description of seasonality and the excessive use of primate examples. It should be more concise and save most of the examples for the body of the article.

The content added to the article is relevant to the topic, and the content added is up to date. In addition, I found that after reading the four added sections, I better understood was Cathermerality was! Thus, I think adding a brief description of the major topics into the lead section would be beneficial to readers. However, I think it would be of interest to include examples of other animals that utilize cathemeral activity. Many examples, especially in the “thermoregulation” and “predatory avoidance” sections, focus on one article and one species of lemur. Are there any more animals or species you could add to these sections to further exemplify the behaviour? Also, in the “environmental factors” section, there is no need to explain photoperiodism if you have a WikiLink to the page that explains it. I would recommend taking that portion of the first sentence out. On that note, it may also be beneficial to include more WikiLinks throughout your article, especially when stating families or genus'!

In terms of tone, the content added is neutral, and there are no heavily biased claims to a particular view. The writing is objective and simply states facts without any signs of personal bias or an overrepresentation/underrepresentation of a particular belief.

The newly added content is all backed up by reliable sources of information. However, I think some references may be misplaced. I believe the citation should go in the first sentence, especially if it is a claim. For example, the citations in the “thermoregulation” section look correct, but the first sentence is not cited in the “predator avoidance” section. It may be of interest to look over these citations in detail and make sure each claim is being correctly cited. The content in the article matches the information in the sourced references. In addition, the sources are current and are from accredited, peer-reviewed journals, such as Biological Rhythm Research and Folia Primatologica. However, 2/10 articles are written by Ian Tattersall, and 3/10 are from the Folia Primatologica journal. This may affect the diversity of the information you are presenting. To combat this, you could search the scientific literature for cathemetality articles regarding animals other than primates. Lastly, all the links to the articles work correctly.

Regarding organization, I think the content added in the body is concise, clear, and easy to read. However, I have a couple notes. First, the scientific name of an animal must be italicized. Thus, “Eulemor mongoz” should be written as "Eulemor mongoz." This rule is also applied when you are simply stating the name of a genus. Accordingly, in your last sentence in the lead section, it should read “genus Eulemur” instead of “genus Eulemur.” In addition, when referring to animals by their common name, such as “the mongoose lemur,” you should capitalize the first word of the common name; thus, it should read “the Mongoose lemur” instead. Also, in the food quality section, you spell “fibre” as “fiber.” This should be corrected in your final draft. In the second paragraph of the lead section, you repeat the species “fulvus.” And, lastly, in the “environmental factors” section, you have “luminosity” unnecessarily capitalized. However, overall, the content is well organized, and the body is structured nicely.

The draft contains no pictures; however, I think adding images to further explain concepts, such as nocturnal luminosity, could be beneficial to readers.

To conclude, the new contributions to the article provide substantial information that improves the overall quality of the article. The content of the body article allows readers to better understand a complex topic and understand the factors that influence cathermerality. However, the lead article should be reassessed and concisely describe the topic, especially in the introductory sentence.