User talk:Caduceus19/sandbox

Group Gameplan Feedback:

General: - As you know, part of this draft required that you make plans about the images you wanted to use. Some of that is alluded to here, but not very much and your peer reviewers noted that as well. Make sure that you respond to this in your next assignment. Also complete or go back to the student training and you can also go here for a very comprehensive how-to and resources on contributing to Wikimedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

Specific section comments:

-When posting to the talk pages or when asking for feedback from the experts, I suggest that you draft those questions and include them here so that the whole team can see what you asked. Have you heard back from posts or asked about these ideas you have?

Osquaesitor (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

PEER REVIEWS:

1) "Due to having smaller eyes in comparison to Megabats, Microbats depend on echolocation to navigate and find prey. It was found that their poor vision was attributed to the underdevelopment of visual processes in the retina. General retinal elements, such as rod and cone bipolar cells, AII amacrine cells, and RGBCs (retinal ganglion cells), as well as retinofugal projections, contribute to the microbat's visual ability; however, a third photorecptor, called intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), are yet to be identified in any bats that contribute to their vision. These cells are responsible for the microbat's ability to respond to light and plays a role in both non-image forming vision, such as circadian rhythms, sleep regulation, and pupil responses, as well as image forming vision.[13]" Good job using a reliable source from a neutral point of view but maybe look for another source to add to your information for more diversity, just like what you said about adding more sources about various eye sizes. A potential revision for would just replacing the semicolon with a period but otherwise syntax and grammar is fine. Adding a figure of the eyeball/retina in general would also be useful.

"Microbats and megabats display differences in their palate and teeth size depending on their type of diet. Microbats that have large teeth and small palates are insectivores, carnivores, and frugivores; however, microbats that feed on nectar have small teeth and large palates. Regardless of the size of the bat, the proportion of the teeth and palate size are maintained.[14]" Again, good use of a reliable, neutral source. Adding more sources to the evolution and current function of the teeth as well as a figure(s) showing the amount, kinds, and structure of the teeth would be beneficial, but otherwise it is coming along.

2) "Fluid intake for bats is an important factor for survival. Due to their body composition of having over 80% of the body surface is naked they are more prone to dehydration rapidly. Water helps maintain their ionic balance, thermoregulation system, and removal of wastes and toxins from the body via urine. They are also susceptible to blood urea poisoning if they do not receive enough fluid.[15]" Good topic in regards to being important for the bat's survival but what exactly will you look at your dissection? Potentially a figure of the throat, stomach, intestines or urethra would be helpful as well as adding more sources will help your topic become more stronger.

3) "Flying has many positive contributions to the species that participate in this form of travel. One of these includes options of migration, covering large masses of land for resources because of distance coverage in a day as well availability to cross land masses that are difficult to cross on land, such as mountains, water and desserts. Yet, flight does not come at a cheap expense. It takes a lot of energy, a sufficient way of respiration and metabolic transfer to the flight muscles. Energy supply to the muscle's engaged in flight require double the amount to those animals that do not use flight as a means of transportation.[16] In parallel to energy consumption, oxygen levels of flying animals is twice as much than that of their running transportation counterparts.[16] As blood supply controls the amount of oxygen supplied throughout the body, the organs and systems functioning in blood supply must respond accordingly. Therefore it is not shocking that, compared to a terrestrial traveling animal of the same relative size, the bat's heart can be up to three times larger (dissect this part compare it to relatively other smaller mammals).[16] In comparison to other animals that do fly (birds), bats have lower oxygen consumption rates relative to body mass. Relative to blood supply compared to birds, bats have more red blood cells and those red blood cells contain more hemoglobin resulting in more oxygen supply to the muscular structures that need them for flight. [16]

Torpor which is a reduced physiological activity may be taken advantage of during harsh conditions when food expenses cannot be met. It is stated that one can reduce energy requirements by becoming heterothermic. Female little brown bats have shown to become heterothemic during early stages of reproduction but stop before lactation and prior to birth.[16] The mother being in a heterothermic state during the entire cycle of pregnancy suggest the fetus cannot fully develop under those circumstances.[16]" Overall a good use of a neutral, reliable source, but having more diversity in sources would be beneficial, especially if you can find more information on the pelvic girdle in regards to reproduction. What exactly is torpor? How are you going to relate it back to your dissection? As for the section on flying the content is good but could be a tad more structured and concise. For example: "Flying is beneficial to bats in the form of movement. An example of this would be migration, allowing them to cover large distances with difficult terrain via flight in search of resources. Flight is a costly action due to it taking a sufficient amount of energy for respiration and metabolic transfer to the flight muscles" Adding structures of the wings and potentially individual muscles and how they contribute to the function of flight would be beneficial.

Overall, the assignments for who is doing what are clear and the drafts are well organized. More plans for images could be added as well as adding to the fluid intake section to even out the distribution of information. Padfoot (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
All of the drafts reflect neutrality. All of the sections need to have picture proposals or plans on what you plan to take a picture of during dissection.

Lianne, your section is very informative and I think it would be an important article to add to the microbat page. I would suggest either having links to another Wikipedia page on RGBC’s or explaining them more as the average reader will probably not know much about them and their function. By breaking down what RGBC’s do, it will help the clarity of your draft.

Jimmy, I think you could expand more on the fluid intake of the bat. This could include how they take in fluid physiologically and how long they can store it before they need to intake more. I would like to see what your plan is for your picture proposal. You may consider doing a flow chart to show where the fluid enters and exits the bat.

Frankee, your information is very informative and would be good areas to explore. I really liked the physiological comparisons you made between bats and other organisms such as birds. I was confused on what your exact topic was since you covered flight, energy, the heart and reproduction. All of which were factually explained but I was unsure on how they all connected. What is your picture proposal?

Copy Edit

General retinal elements, such as rod and cone bipolar cells, all amacrine cells, RGBCs (retinal ganglion cells), and retinofugal projections, contribute to the microbat's visual ability;

These cells are responsible for the microbat's ability to respond to light and play a role in both non-image forming vision, such as circadian rhythms, sleep regulation, and pupil responses, as well as image forming vision.

They are more prone to rapid dehydration since 80% of their body surface is naked of hair.

One of these includes options of migration where they cover large masses of land on search of resources as well as crossing land masses that are difficult to cross on land, such as mountains, water and desserts.

They expend twice as much oxygen than their running transportation counterparts

Burner112 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Microbat vision: Great start so far. That is a good idea of expanding on these various sections. Possibly creating a microbat vision section in the Microbat then possibly linking that to bat vision on the bat page? The draft could be broken down a little more because some of the sentences are lengthy and carry too much information. You could link some words to their corresponding pages, such as amacrine cells or echolocation, etc. Definitely finding more sources for microbat vision. Your draft seems to be neutral and relevant!

Fluid intake: This is a good topic but what will you look at during your dissection that is important to fluid intake? Finding a certain body part or feature of the microbat that is important to fluid intake might be more helpful in organizing your draft and what you want to talk about. Also adding more sources!

Flying: Similar to my fluid intake comment of what will you focus on during your dissection? Also checking to make sure other pages have not talked about this already! There are a few sentences that could be fixed to be more neutral and will less casual language but overall great sources and information! Look at topor wiki page because there may be some overlap. Bazinga2018 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft 1 This has a lot of information packed in it. I would be a good idea to break up that really long sentence so you can better explain what is going on. Your source seems to be legit I'm sorry to hear that finding more information on this is difficult. I think its a good idea to add a separate section on the microbat page rather than adding to the general bat page. Draft 2 This was easy to follow and pretty interesting. More information should be added to this subject so consider looking for more sources. There is no discussion about what images you propose to use. You could take pictures of the microbat's teeth when you dissect it. Draft 3 This is really good a lot of background information that give the reader the big picture. You should consider talking about where you plan to add this information. Will this go in the general bat page or the microbat page. ReallyCaffeinated (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)ReallyCaffeinated

Some sections of this draft seems to be more of a written plan letting your group members know what you plan to do, but not an actual draft. Frankee's section is the only one that contains a big bulk of sources and is structured as an actual draft. Lianne and Frankee both contributed a lot of information, just represented in different ways. Once Jimmy contributes more, I think you all will have a good amount of information and plan to make a good contribution.

From what I can see, the content is neutral, just needs to be structed into a actual draft.

The parts that are not in an actual draft form are pretty well structured though with good flow. Frankee's section is a well structured draft.

There are no known plans for pictures as far as I can see.

Overall I think there is a lot of good infomration there, and you have some promising features!

LuteMJS (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Microbat vision; this section appears to have clear intentions about what to add and edit in the Wiki page, which is great. For every possible proposal, there is reasoning for doing so, which ensures that nothing unnecessary or distracting is going to be added. The draft is very well planned out and organized, though I would consider breaking some sentences down into smaller ones, as they are packed with detail-specific information (such as cell types and functions) that may be hard to process at first sight, and could lead other Wiki users to skim or glaze over the material instead of "digesting it".

Evolution and function of microbat teeth; this section provides easy to understand information that can be contributor for other readers. I like that the differences between microbats and megabats were concise and simple. More information and/or sources can be added, though that issue is already addressed by the user, which is good.

Fluid intake; this section is a bit small in length and could be supplemented with a bit more to really make a difference to the page. How can you contribute to this topic by studying the bat yourself? Are there structures or features of that bat that can be easily observed to understand this information? Otherwise, the draft has a good start and great information that can be added upon.

Flying; overall, this section features a well-laid out draft that is good in flow and structure. All the information concerning flying in bats is well cited and seems to provide lots of pertinent information to bats. There is not much I would change to this draft. The proposal on pregnancy and energy-saving mechanisms in mother bats sounds very like a very interesting topic that I would enjoy learning about. Petrikyv (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Caduceus19 Peer Review
Microbat vision/Teeth size

Neutral content: Yes

Reliable sources: Yes, and I agree with your own assessment about finding a couple more sources. This will strengthen your draft to make for a more balanced article. I would re-write your last sentence on microbat vision. It is plagiaristic, in my opinion. The drafted version is a little too similar to the authors leading sentence in their abstract:

Drafted: “These cells are responsible for the microbat's ability to respond to light and plays a role in both non-image forming vision, such as circadian rhythms, sleep regulation, and pupil responses, as well as image forming vision”

Original author: “Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) respond to light and play roles in non-image forming vision, such as circadian rhythms, pupil responses, and sleep regulation, or image forming vision…” (abstract)

Also, the last sentence on microbat teeth should be re-written. It is also too similar to the original authors paper.

Original author: ''“With few exceptions, the microchiropteran insectivores, carnivores, and frugivores have relatively large teeth on small palates, and microchiropteran nectarivores and megachiropterans have relatively small teeth on large palates (Figure 9.1C). Megachiropteran nectarivores have relatively smaller teeth on the palate than megachiropteran frugivores. These relative proportions are maintained regardless of the size of the bat”'' (p.143)

Drafted: “Microbats and megabats display differences in their palate and teeth size depending on their type of diet. Microbats that have large teeth and small palates are insectivores, carnivores, and frugivores; however, microbats that feed on nectar have small teeth and large palates. Regardless of the size of the bat, the proportion of the teeth and palate size are maintained.”

Other than the issues addressed above, this is the beginning of a good start to your wiki contribution. I would suggest trying to find images comparing palate size and tooth size among microbats. That would be an interesting juxtaposition to see.

Fluid Intake Second sentence could be re-written for better flow. It just reads a little awkwardly. Other than that, you have a good source, but I would find a couple more to strengthen your article

Flying/Torpor You have a really nice section done, but you could use more sources -- at least two more to strengthen your draft and keep it balanced. Your second sentence is a little run-on. I would break it up for better flow of the article. Other than that, I did not notice any major grammatical or structural issues with your draft.

Inquisitio scientiae (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Bat Peer Review and Copy Edit
The organization is done well on who will be contributing what portions. Subtitles would help to your organization for visual cues. Some of the work load seems disproportioned. There should be images with this portion or talk of what type of images you might be interested. You all have good starts to your chosen topics.

Vision: For week 6, I do not think the introduction of why you are adding this content is necessary. You have done a good job in summarizing the differences in vision between the two bats. This being a draft I am sure you know a lot more links could be added within the sentences. It seems to say microbats are the only ones with echolocation you may need to clarify.

Teeth: This section is nicely done for a lot of information on teeth and related functions. I would suggest you might not want to use comparisons between the two bats as your standalone information is sufficient.

Fluid intake: The information on fluid intake is well summarized. I would choose a different word than naked for describing their body structure. I would also specify the types of fluids they intake.

Flight: This is a lot information over the generalized advantages of flight. I would try and narrow the effects to specifically the microbat. Specificity could also help in relation to the shape or size relative to the microbat and the related advantages. (Nsabo (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC))

Bat review: The drafts seem very well articulated and organized. All sources were credible. The pages this would be editing is 3.2, 3.4, and 3,5 which are wings and flight, internal systems, and senses respectively. It is quite obvious that some drafts were longer and more articulate than others, however, after doing a draft of my own it could quite possibly be that there is more information on certain topics then others. Sentence structure looks good to me.Biologicalamphibian (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Skinnerd11's peer review

This looks like a great team effort and the drafts have great content. I believe a good lead section would be helpful before you proceed on drafting what needs to be added to the main page you hope to edit. The content of all three pages is neutral. However, it will be great if Jimmy adds more content to the section he plans on reviewing. The organization of the draft is great. The sources are reliable as well and all teams are contributing towards editing this paper. I'm not quite clear on what the plan for contributing images to each section looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnerd11 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)