User talk:HShoey/sandbox

Article evaluation feedback
You do a really nice job here considering the strengths of this article, offering some specific examples to support those observations, and clearly noting where you see opportunities for further improvement. Your notes about the under-represented CRISPR angle, source quality, and sentence flow all stand out to me as particularly strong evaluation components. Nice work! Nicoleccc (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Choose a topic feedback
This is a really nice overview of what you could do to improve each of these articles and some initial sources! On an initial look through each of these articles, any of them can be a good choice for this project, but Mammalogy seems like the one you have the best initial batch of sources on (although, yes, finding some from sources other than Oxford would only strengthen your contribution) and the one that you have the clearest specific path to improving. If you pursue one of the specific animal species (which is also perfectly fine and any of these articles can easily be improved), I would just recommend making sure that you feel confident in the quality and range of sources you're finding before committing to it in your topic analysis writing. If you're finding that you have a good range of high-quality sources for multiple of these articles, I would suggest picking the topic (of the ones you have the most/best sources for) that you are most interested in or curious to learn more about. Nicoleccc (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
While the information you provide is great, I think it may be a bit too much for the intro section. I would suggest moving most of that extra info into the different article sections. Some ideas for your article sections might be: all the major branches of mammalogy (natural history, taxonomy, etc.), habitats, extinction, and mammologists. A couple of questions, you listed the weight difference between the shrew and the blue whale is 70 million, but is the lbs or is the blue whale 70 million times the size of a shrew? Also, what species of the shrew is the smallest? Fisaowen (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Grace's peer review Gracepchicken (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I just want to start off by saying that the topic you picked is super cool! I used to want to be a zoologist and this article reminded me of the nights where I would sit in bed reading national geographic. One thing I noticed is how long your beginning section is. I would recommend making the first paragraph your beginning section, and the making the other two paragraphs there own section. My only other recommendation would be to expand on different species of mammals. Maybe include platypuses, and the things that make them unique. Those are my only suggestions, otherwise I believe you did very good. Your grammar was amazing and I think you will exceed in your article, and I am excited to read the final draft! Gracepchicken (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer review
Awesome work on your additions. I like the details in the lead section and you really were able to beef-up the references. I think it's nicely organized. I like your additions about biology and zoology but i think it should come after the overview of mammalogy. Since mammalogy is the article topic it's the first thing you should read. Good luck with future edits! Derickson309 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Article draft feedback
You've done some good expansion work in this draft, particularly drawing value connections around humans studying other mammals. As you continue to expand and revise this, some things to keep in mind are:
 * Value statements can be very tricky in encyclopedia work, almost always incorporating editorial bias. Careful and abundant sourcing can help with this, but it's something to be aware of and tread very carefully. One example of where this draft steps into a value statement gray area is: "The study and observation of mammals is important for many reasons." Arguing for importance suggests bias and a purpose outside that of an encyclopedia entry.
 * For this kind of article, the biggest things that someone finding it on this platform are likely to be looking for are an understanding of what exactly a a mammalogist does, (look at the research sections in the Zoology Wikipedia article for an example of this) and the history of this field of study. These are probably your most fruitful possible additions over the remaining work for this article, assuming you've located sources that support these conversations. (There is already a Wikipedia article on mammals that covers the types, abilities, etc. of the wide range of these animals. Folks coming to the mammalogy page will be expecting to learn about this branch of biology in particular rather than the animals it studies.)
 * For organization, I wonder if the material you've already written would go into a section along the lines of "Impact on human health studies and medicine" (or something along those general lines). The core of your existing material seems to focus on why this field of study is important for humans, and these measurable, medical avenues of that importance seem like the most relevant for an encyclopedia entry.
 * I'm curious about the first paragraph of your new material, as it seems to be re-stating much of the existing lead. Is this intended to replace the existing lead? If so, what about the original lead paragraph required so much rephrasing? If this isn't intended to replace the existing lead, it would be good to whittle it a bit to just the new information not already stated.

Let me know if you have any questions as you continue adding to and revising your edits, and I look forward to reading your polished article work! Nicoleccc (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Very impressed with your first paragraph, well said. One small correction would be to put a comma and the end of "body" in this sentence, "A specialized area of focus in zoology is mammalogy. Mammalogy is the study of mammals and since humans are mammals, researching other mammals habitats, food sources, and body, prove to be beneficial". Other than that, well done.