User talk:EmilyM04/sandbox

Peer Review
You do a great job of describing term and organizing your information. There is no room for confusing in your article, and someone with nearly no knowledge on the topic would not have a hard time understanding the material you are presenting.

A couple changes or additions you could make to your article is adding a few visuals and giving more examples for the things you write about. Adding pictures, whether of the scientists who first developed this idea or graphs to visual data, would help your reader become more engaged and possibly take more away from your article.

The main thing that you could work on for this article is maybe adding a section about how this relates to ecology.

In terms of your content, it is very neutral and up-to-date, there don't seem to be any over- or under-represented viewpoints, and your sources are all reliable and credible.

Overall, this is a really great article and I think you've added a lot to this Wikipedia page.

Bpm83 (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

some additional comments
Line 1:


 * I don't think you need to capitalize Fecundity here
 * the syntax would be simpler and easier to parse if you say "reproductive ability" instead of "the ability for reproduction"
 * It's kind of confusing how you say that it's typically applies to females, but in the next sentence you say it can be applied to asexual reproduction. Maybe consider saying like "reproductive individuals" instead of females to make this more general?

Line 2:


 * Consider rewriting this sentence with a more interpretable subject than "studies". Fecundity would be better. E.g. "fecundity may be defined differently in different studies". It would be better to rewrite this whole paragraph refocusing it on the fecundities rather than the studies. Whoever is reading this article wants to know about fecundity -- not about studies.
 * You might consider renaming the patterns section "Life history patterns" or something.

Under factors affecting fecundity:

- I think you should have a "for example" in your opening sentence here -- otherwise it implies that this is an exhaustive list of factors. - "this rate" has unclear antecedent. Should be maybe something like: "several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this relationship" - it isn't clear what is modified by "as life expectancy decreases". consider using semicolons to separate these clauses. (If you have a list that contains commas within a list element, this is usually a good use-case for the use of semicolons). "When discussing semelparous species" -- should just be "in semelparous species". Also, the last clause here should probably be it's own sentence. -"making it a waste of energy to reproduce in high numbers when offspring survival is low" -- this is an evolutionary explanation I guess, but another (perhaps simpler) explanation is just that there isn't enough energy to support as much reproduction at all. - "This decrease is not always true, but is seen very often" -- This seems unnecessary. You could just add an "often" in the previous sentence to the same effect. - "more allure to pollinators and grazers" -- not sure why grazers would increase fecundity? - "Moreau–Lack's rule" -- The strong rhetorical emphasis on this rule and Moreau himself is kind of distracting here. I think it would be better to maintain latitude and/or fecundity as the main subjects here and refer to the rule more obliquely, since most readers will not have prior knowledge of this rule and thus it will not be easily interpretable. The same goes for "Ashmole's hypothesis"

Under Fecundity and Fitness:

- Again, it would be more coherent if you maintain fecundity as the subject as much as possible here, e.g. "fecundity is an important component of fitness" -- instead of "fitness is a measure of the success of an individual in natural selection, encompassing a species chances at surviving, reproducing, and how many offsprings they leave". I don't think you actually need to define fitness here. You can instead just wikilink to the fitness article. This is the beauty of wikipedia! beanstash (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)