User talk:Cass-stock/Fixed action pattern

Peer reviewed by Acp741

Lead evaluation : The lead of this articles provides a good overview of the contents within the article, and highlights the main topics. The introductory sentence describes the articles topic, and is clear and concise. However, the lead includes the 6 criteria for a FAP, but it is not explained further in the body of the article what the 6 criteria mean. Also, the flow of the lead seems to be a bit choppy in efforts to highlight the main topics. A few sentences to bring all the ideas together may help to create a better flow.

Content evaluation: All content added to this article is relevant and up to date. A few things that may further the article that are missing:1- The inclusion of a section dedicated to the explanation of each of the 6 criteria for FAP. 2- A further explanation of sign stimuli vs. releaser with more examples. 3- An example of each exception to the FAP. By adding these suggestion, it will further the understanding of the reader and " paint the whole picture" essentially.

Tone and balance evaluation: All content is neural and does not try to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and references evaluation: The added sources seem to be up to date and relevant. The only link that did not work was #18.

Organization evaluation: The overall organization of the article provides a good flow of information. In general, it follows the same flow as in the lead. There are a few very short sentences within the article that could be expanded on to avoid choppiness in the paragraph. A few filler words such as "so" are included as well. A careful read through of the article, checking for proper punctuation and grammatical errors would be beneficial. Overall, the organization of the article was easy to follow along with.

Images and media evaluation: The added pictures are relevant to the article, however I would also add back the picture of the Brood Parasite included in the original article as it provides a great visual of a supernormal stimulus. Another picture relating to FAP may also be beneficial to add appeal to the eye.

Overall evaluation: The contributions to this article so far have done a great job at further completing this article. I would however include the sections describing the 6 characteristics, as well as providing examples of the the exceptions and a clearer comparison of the different types of stimuli. With these added sections, and a few grammatical and sentence flow improvements, I think the article will be pretty much complete!

Acp741 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Acp741

Relevance: All information presented is relevant and helps understand the phenomenon.

Distracting: I found some of the wording distracting, for example there is a sentence that refers to Lorenz as "one of the founders" that needs reworking to read nicely. I am also not sure if the heading "Criticisms" is the best word choice, perhaps "Exceptions" would work instead?

Neutrality: The article appears to be neutral and does not try to convince readers of any biased points.

Viewpoint over / under represented: A little more information about the exceptions would bolster the article.

Citations: Appear to be working and are from acceptable sources.

Facts cited well: Each fact is cited, nothing is left unsupported.

Out of date info: Nothing appears to be from a source that has since been disproven or no longer relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.215.183 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)