User talk:Akward483/sandbox

Peer Review
A lead section that is easy to understand

1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

Yes, your lead clearly stated that population size is important because it is directly related to things like genetic drift and the founder effect.


 * Thank you! I appreciate this.

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

Yes, your lead does a good job of setting up the things you are going to discuss in the article.
 * I appreciate this, thank you.

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others?

Your lead emphasizes drift heavily, but since that is what most of your article is about, I think it fits just fine.
 * I was worried it might be too much but I appreciate hearing that it fits into the article.

4. Is anything missing?

I think it is fine the way it is. It addresses the important things that you spent a lot of time discussing, and population size itself seems like a fairly simple concept that does not need much explanation.
 * Awesome, thank you!

5. Is anything redundant?

No. The last sentence in your lead could maybe be moved to the Genetic Drift section of your article, but it is not doing any harm the way it is currently.
 * I’ll look into that and see how the phrasing fits – thank you for the suggestion!

A clear structure

6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order?

There are only three sections in your article so it is not a big deal, but I do think there is a better way to arrange it.
 * Great, thank you!

7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

After emphasizing drift so much in your lead, maybe it would make more sense to have the Genetic Drift section first. It does seem to be the most important, after all.


 * Thanks – I toyed with this idea, so I’ll move that section up and see how it works there!

Balanced coverage

8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?

Yes, you focused a lot of effort on explaining drift, which makes sense because drift is one of the most important evolutionary concepts related to population size.
 * That’s exactly why I picked drift to focus on.

9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary?

The neutral theory section seems a bit unnecessary and unimportant, but I do not see it as a bad thing to have it there just to complement the article more and have a counter point to drift.
 * It’s in there to present an additional counterpoint - I’ll work on trying to fuse it in better.

10. Is anything off-topic?

It is not exactly explained what the significance of neutral theory is to population size, maybe be more specific there?
 * See above comment; thank you! I'll reorganize.

11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?

Yes, it seems to reflect the perspectives accurately.
 * Thank you! I appreciate it.

12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

There does not seem to be many viewpoints involved with the topic in general.
 * Thank you!

13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

Not really, your article basically only states facts and does not try to persuade.
 * Great, thank you!

Neutral content

14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

No, the topic does not seem to be one where there is much room for bias anyway.
 * Thank you! I appreciate it.

15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

I did not notice any.
 * Thank you!

16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

There were a few instances of unnamed research being referenced, but there was a source linked each time so it was not completely unnamed.
 * I’ll double check some of these and source better.

17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

All of the information seems more or less neutral.
 * Thank you!

Reliable sources

18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

Yes, they are mostly primary sources.
 * Great thank you

19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

There are a lot of references to Rozen and LaBar, but I think those are your case studies so it makes sense.
 * That’s the thought – thank you.

20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

You had a couple of unsourced sentences in your Population Bottlenecks section, but you sourced everything else in a way that was fitting of the information in that respective source.
 * I’ll look through my notes to find better sourcing. Thank you!Akward483 (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Jah-Nice Washington A lead section that is easy to understand 1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, you clearly define what population size is.
 * Great, thank you!

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, I felt as if it correlated with the lead and it wasn’t off topic.
 * Thank you! I appreciate it.

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No, I think it is equally weighed throughout the entire article.
 * Great, thank you!

4. Is anything missing? No
 * Thank you!

5. Is anything redundant? I think that the article is very well put together and nothing really seemed redundant in my opinion.
 * Thank you!!! I appreciate it.

A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? I think that the neutral theory probably should have been above the modeling genetic drift section, but other than that everything else seemed perfect.
 * Thank you for the suggestion! I'll try to change some of the organization and see what works or flows better.

7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I believe that it still makes sense in the original order that it is presented.
 * Thank you!

Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Yes, because the author gave us background information that would help us understand the article better.
 * Awesome - thank you, I appreciate it.

9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? No, everything in the article corresponded with each other.
 * Great, thank you.

10. Is anything off-topic? No, everything was relevant to the main topic and had a purpose for being there.
 * Great!

11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Yes
 * Thank you.

12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No, I think the author did a good job with all of the background information.
 * I appreciate it - thank you

13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? I don’t think it’s trying to convince the reader, I think the author is just stating facts and it’s not really an opinionated topic.
 * Super! I'm glad to hear it

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I believe so because it is really just factual and the author didn’t seem like they disagreed with the facts.
 * Great, thank you

15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No all of the words were neutral, the author did a good job refraining from making assumptions from their audience that they already knew some of the things that the author was talking about.
 * Thank you

16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, the author did a good job staying away from pronouns and saying things like “some people say” and clearly defined who said/did what.
 * Thank you! I appreciate it

17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No, I think the author did a good job explaining their topic without coming off to positive or to negative.
 * Thank you, I appreciate it

Reliable sources 18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? All of the major facts are all cited from textbooks and articles.

19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, the author did a good job balancing their sources out in correlation with their article.
 * Thank you for your input - I appreciate it

20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No, everything had a correctly cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.124.4 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you so much for taking the time to review my work Akward483 (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)