User:Kendall3414/sandbox

Check out this article

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-38900-001 Article Evaluation

While reading the article Animal Cognition, I noticed that the information throughout the article seemed to be heavily researched. There are many instances where the author(s) have cited other pieces of information; or cited other individuals in this profession.

Something that i found rather interesting while reading this article, was that one of the sections was titled, "Some studies might be nice". I found this interesting because, it allows the authors casualness to bleed through the article and in a way deformalizes this article. I feel like in doing this it is effective for me at least, as a reader, to be able to think of this individual as less biased. Considering the way that they acknowledged that there could be some research done in this area and that this article by no means was the end all be all.

I think that this article remains relatively neutral in the way that they are essentially just presenting facts to readers.

Something i am noticing as i read through this article is that there seem to be places where people have questions, or things that they would like to be explained further. Things that may not have been explicitly stated in the article. I think that this article could be bolstered by the addition of more credible sources that information is being pulled from, and even more so from the kinds of sources they are using. I think something that would be extremely effective in informing their readers, is studies. More particularly experiments, where they walk you through how they were able to come to this conclusion of quantifying this observable animal intelligence. I think by doing this it would really appeal to peoples logic and would be more of a captivating read all together.

The links seem to work throughout the article, what i am noticing though is that a lot of the information that is being cited and the sources that are being used, are not very up to date. This article could use a refresher in its citing. The sources they are using though do seem to be credible and fairly scholarly for the most part. The sites don't seem to be for any for profit business or anything where they are just trying to push money in. Kendall3414 (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)