User talk:Emmadornan/sandbox

Peer Review
What a fantastic article. The content was informative and well-written, with sectioning that made the article very organized and easy to read. You obviously put a lot of work in the literature search, as all the information was backed up with relevant references. I really enjoyed reading this and have only minor suggestions, such as fixing a few very minor grammatical errors. Here are my suggestions for corrections by section:

Lead section “Pagophily or pagophilia is the preference or dependence on water ice [for] some or all activities and functions.” “For example, a number of ice seals [SPACE] are…” - space between seals and are

Phocidae “The evolution of feeding behaviours and diets of ice-dwelling seals in both the [Arctic]…”

Lactation periods in ice-seals “In a longer lactation period where relatively low amounts of energy are transferred to pups over a long period of time[, pups] stay closer to their mothers and are protected from predators.” – the “and thus” did not fit.

Edwardsiella andrillae “This is the first species of sea anemone that [has been observed to live] in ice rather than on the ocean floor.” Bf335 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Arron's Peer Review
Note the grammatical errors mentioned by the first editor. I did not find any new ones.

I think your lead section is great! I had no idea what Pagophily was before reading it but I know what it was after the fact so, the lead section definitely does it’s job. You may want to consider a second paragraph here that quickly summarizes all the topics, such as a sentence or two from “Pagophily in Mammals”, Pagophily in birds”, “Pagophily in Invertebrates”, and “Climate Change and Pagophilic Animals”.

The sections are well organized and in a sensible order. I wouldn’t change the order. Obviously, I’m sure you are aware that the “Ice-Breeding” section is empty, and it cannot be left like that. Liked that you have sub topics within larger topics that all have their own introductory. Great use of hyperlinks throughout the article.

Each section's length is equal to its importance and the article does not try to convince the reader to accept a particular point of view.

I took a look at your references and they look great and you have 15, that’s awesome. I also liked the pictures you used however, I’m not sure if the pictures are sourced, you might want to look at that. Afm814 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)