User talk:Chasea60/sandbox

Peer review of "Ruppell's Vulture" edit (from Christopher Dollete)
•I love the use of in-text citations. It shows that all the claims/information is found directly from a reputable source and that the information can be trusted.

•I like that your information is very easy to read, as some articles, when talking about physiology or anatomy, can start to become very complicated to understand for readers. Your paragraph uses the cited information, and you state it in a way that is interesting and non-intimidating. I do not think that was necessarily a criterion, but I think it is good regardless.

•I think your contribution can go under either “Behavior,” like you said or maybe under “Anatomy and Morphology,” which is a title I saw in the “Species” guide on the Wikipedia dashboard. I think it is subjective what the subheading title should be. “Aerodynamics” is good. Another suggestion is maybe just “Flight.” Again, I do not think it matters that much.

•I do agree with you that it branches a little away from “wing aerodynamics” into more general aerodynamics. I think it should be a little more focused on the wings, as opposed to how they angle their “head and feet positions,” for example. It is good information, but it does stray from the “wings” concentration. I do think that that information does belong in the article, though. Maybe just not for our assignment.