User:CourteneyD1999/Savaging/Idm123 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Peer review of CourteneyD1999's contribution to the Savaging page by user idm123.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CourteneyD1999/Savaging?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Savaging

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Hey CourteneyD1999! Here is my peer review of your article :) Some of the points are a little nit-picky but I thought your contribution was really good so I wanted to at least give you some little things to work with! Good luck with your final contribution.

Lead
I'm gonna start with a quick note of something that I think would have been really useful to have changed. In the lead section, the original article makes a lot of claims that are not cited. It would have been a major contribution to have found citations for this information - or change/remove it if you found contradicting information.

In terms of the definitions added to the lead section, I think this was a useful contribution but I would remove the word "or" in "or females who had not yet previously farrowed" and either say that without the or, or put the rest of the sentence in parenthesis. This is minor but I did have to read that sentence a couple times to make sense of it - so it might be an easy way to help with the clarity of the article.

One last point on the lead section - I can not quite make sense of why this aggressive behavior occurs or what evolutionary advantage it would have. Maybe I missed something (ignore this if you think I did), but I think adding just a small point to the first sentence (or somewhere else in the lead if you feel it would fit better) that quickly shows why the adults would display this aggressive behavior would be useful. Maybe there is no reason clear enough to put in a sentence in the lead section, but even making note of that would help with the clarity of the article.

Body
I really liked how you kept the structure of the original article but added important information to the existing paragraphs. You made good use of the sources, even using ones that were already cited in the article but drawing important information that had been missed in the original article. I was also really impressed with your use of both old and new sources! The extra information and examples definitely help the readers understand how each factor plays a role in savaging.

My only suggestion for the body of the article was that the paragraphs tended to be a little long. I would suggest trying to find a way to split the information into multiple paragraphs under the headings rather than one big one. This is only a small change but I think it would help make it a little more readable.

I thought you did well at keeping any bias out of the article, I did not feel like you were trying to persuade me at any point.

Overall I thought your contribution was awesome!