User talk:AlexandraHayward/sandbox

this article is very well structured and is a a very good start to a new article. The lead section is very consist and summarizes the information very well and is followed by EDC's that are known to cause such changes. the one thing I would say about that when you talk about mammals in the reproductive section, you mention the effects that EDC's have but don't mention any specific EDC's. You also only mention what effect any specific EDC's have in the reproductive section and don't mention them anywhere else in the article. There might be some room for you to include more examples in the conservation section of the article, however you added great example in the reproductive section and was very consist about what you were saying there. The section on Timbergen's Four Questions seemed like it was too quick and also lacked any examples but is still a good framework and I think it's a very good addition to the article. Overall I think it is a well structured article that could use a couple more examples and is a good start to an article that does not yet exist. I also like how you didn't focus heavily on the conservation aspect and balanced the article really well.

Second Review:

Good job, this seems very well thought out, the links all work and are used very well and the order seems logical (with the exception of the “Tinbergen’s four questions” section, which I’ve elaborated on below.

I would revise the last sentence following the list of chemicals: "Field studies show that changes occur at environmental levels, while laboratory studies clarify the legitimacy of correlations found in the field." I understand what you're trying to get at but this sounds like you're undermining field studies. I would simply say something like "Field studies are useful in determining how environments are changing at a larger scale and lab studies can be used to clarify the mechanisms connecting an environmental pollutant to specific behavioural or physiological changes".

Also, the section on Tinbergen's four questions feels a little underrepresented. If you're going to tie the topic to these questions I would try and provide a brief example for each to make it a little more relevant and also tie this into your mechanism section by using a transitional statement. Something like “studies into the mechanisms underlying behavioural adjustments fall into one category noted by Tinbergen, who developed the following questions. . . “ or something along those lines would be beneficial.

The sentence: “Guppies treated with atrazine during breeding and through gestation were less likely to engage in and showed fewer numbers of courtship displays and other reproductive behaviours, and as well, females preferred untreated males[3]” is a run-on, consider splitting this into two sentences.

Finally, references 2, 3 and 5 do not have dates associated with them, I would try to fix that.

Overall, good job!

-Katrina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.182.106 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! I appreciate your thoughtful feedback. -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraHayward (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)