User talk:Azyla.m/sandbox

Peer Review
Peer review: Azyla.m’s draft for week six shows they will be working on two articles, the laboratory rat article and muridae article. They will add to the “research” section of the laboratory rat article and add to the “reproductive” section of the muridae article. The organization of the muridae draft is very good, but I am unable to see where the draft of the Laboratory rat article will fit into the “research” section. Great references were used, but more Wikipedia links can be added to the draft.

Suggestions:

Add where the draft for the “research” section of the laboratory rat article will fit into the original section or add the original Wikipedia section to your sandbox and show what you would edit within the section. Add Wikipedia links to their draft. LepidopteraMonarch (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Azyla, Overall your proposals for changes are looking good, as well as your sources that you plan to include. Each edit you’ve proposed is clear for each page, but one of my main concerns for the laboratory rat section is that is it unclear of which paragraph it will be included in, or even if it will be a new paragraph chunk overall, but even though it is a minimal thing, I still think it would be good to include it in the proposal. JustinDelC (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
Hi Alyza!

Laboratory Rat Section I had a little bit of trouble understanding your contributions for this section. While you did type out the information you wished to add, you cited the source as the wikipedia page for the Rat itself. Are you taking information from this page and adding it to the Lab Rat page?

Copyedit: "Scientists have bred many strains or "lines" of rats specifically for experimentation...due to their measurable intelligence, which has found to be similar in humans, rats have aided the understanding of different cognitive factors which make rats a good model organism."[1] - For this section, I italicized the grammatical changes I'm proposing as well as added a comma after the word "intelligence"

It also wasn't stated where exactly in the research section of the page this will be added, so I'm not able to comment on whether or not the contribution is structured correctly or will match the overall flow of the article. However, I do think your proposed addition makes sense to add to the page as its important to understand why rats are valued test subjects for many experiments.

Muridae Section For the most part, the sources you used for this section seem reliable, but I do question the second one slightly. It doesn't look as though it's a peer reviewed article, however I assume that the amount of pups that the organism is able to birth isn't obscure knowledge. Maybe try finding a different source that not only talks about the amount of pups birthed, but gives a little more information to the article as well.

Copyedit: The social behavior of murids has an impact on their reproduction. Some murids are highly social while others are solitary. Females displaying the proceptive phase which initiates a male to mate with females.[2]* Females commonly produce several litters annually. In warm regions, breeding may occur year-round commonly producing an average of 8 to 18 pups [3].Though The lifespans of most genera are generally less than two years, murids have high reproductive potential and this tends to result in an exponential increase of the population. In contrast, when a stressor is introduced, it results in a drastic decline of the population. One factor that contributes to this is the exhaustion of food resources. This is often seen in a three- to four-year cycle. In addition to reproduction, behaviors in nesting materials may affect the performance of the breeding season"[4] - made multiple grammatical fixes (italicized) and also moved a sentence (bold)--Bokhan (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)