User talk:Connorfou/sandbox

Article Evaluation
The Article that I chose was Based on Konrad Lorenz.

In the first paragraph, the article mentions how he is considered the father of modern Ethology, however it does not state where this claim comes from or cite anyone who was noted for saying it. within the second paragraph, the article mentions some of his research but does not link to any of it or have any citations to prove that this was indeed his work. This article does a great job in presenting the facts in a neutral tone, especially when talking about Konrad Lorenz's involvement in Nazi experiments and his point of view on eugenics, both of which are topics which are widely viewed in a negative manner. because of this it is easy to have a one-sided point of view on these topics but the article does a good job by just presenting the facts and not inputting any personal opinion. However, when browsing through the talk page, I Noticed one person state the article was biased due to the publisher focusing more on Lorenz's research and did not spend as much time on his involvement with the Nazi party. I to think that despite the article having a neutral tone towards this topic should have also included more on his involvement with the Nazi party as it gives more background information on his life. Another user in the talk page also flagged the page for using an image that is under fair use protection and the article has no justification for using this image. There was also another user that claimed that one of the quotes in the article was not quoted when it should have been. Based on the Talk page of the article, there was a lot of criticism of how the article portrayed Konrad Lorenz, and the users had very valid arguments as it seemed that the article left out some key details of his life especially those that depicted his involvement with the Nazi party. The article also had a couple of flaws when it came to it misusing the fair use agreement as well as not properly quoting some quotes. The Article does remain constant with its neutrality, tone and relevant information but as said before does neglect to include other pieces of information.

possible topics
one of the possible topics that I found of interest was an article related to the idea of Dominance signals. this is clearly a stub article without much info in it and without many examples or any organized sections. I would like to add more sections and organize it better as well as add more examples to it. I would also like to add more to the reason as to why some animals behave this way and give more of an explanation as to why it is beneficial to these species.

another possible topic I came across was Growling. some of the things I would expand on would be adding more examples of animals that growl, as the article only talks about canines despite other animals showing this behaviour. there also isn't as much information as to its function so I would try to add more to it.

another potential topic would be Interspecies friendship. this topic is also a stub article that could use more information and examples of the topic with more sources and more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorfou (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

TA: Your first and last topic ideas seem like they will work out alright but the topic of growling already has a decent amount written, and it may be hard to find enough new information to make new sections and come up with a significant contribution. It may be easiest to find enough primary literature related to your first topic idea, dominance signals, but if you can find material to support inter-species friendships that could work as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.73.234 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Nice work. These additions to the article are going to make it a lot more balanced, and I think your placement makes sense in terms of the overall article structure. I think you did a good job staying neutral and your sources look good.

When looking at the original article I noticed they refer to the dog being “ angry,” and I think this might be teleological. So it could be a good idea to edit some of the wording in the already existing paragraphs.

A question that came to mind while reading the “function of aggressive growling” section was, why is it important to recognize size difference through growling instead of or in addition to vision? That might be something you could elaborate on.

If there is more research proving that dogs have the ability to distinguish between different growls that might be helpful to source. In general, I think you could use more sources and add more examples, and this might be the most pertinent way to improve your work.

You explain things well though. I hope this helps! AlexandraHayward (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Maria's peer review
Hi, The article looks good so far. I've only got a few minor comments that are outlined below. The lead could use a little work. The first couple sentences makes it seem like growling is only used as an expression of aggressive behaviour but in some of the following sections it is described in the context playful behaviour as well. Similarly, the final section you added references all different types of reasons an animal may growl. So, it should probably be made clear that growling is not only an aggressive behaviour in the leading paragraph. The sections seem well balanced and in an appropriate order. And, overall, the writing is clear and concise. However, you're not adding any new sections from the original article which may be an indication that there are still some things missing. For example, there is a section on the function of aggressive growling but none on the function of non-aggressive growling. There is also no section on the actual study of growling, either about the history of research in animal growling or current tools used to investigate the significance of growling in relation to animal behaviour. In the "growling in canines" section that's in your sandbox, you mention that the behaviour of dogs changes in response to another dogs growl. I think it would be useful to have an example of what those different behaviours look like, relative to each situation. Further, many of the examples you use are related to dogs. This makes it somewhat difficult to distinguish which paragraphs actually belong in the "growling in canines" section. That is, which phenomenon are specific to canines and which are true for all animals that growl. Using examples from different taxa would make it more clear. The references that you've used seem appropriate. My only comment would be that each section, only has one reference. I would consider drawing on different sources to supply relevant examples or additional information for the ideas that you will add to the article. This is especially true in the "other functions of growling" section. Maria Dobbin (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)