User talk:Kensarah1234/sandbox

Peer Review by Ksilver19

Lead: A few changes have been made to the lead, which help with the flow and wording. The introductory sentence is clear and concise. The contents of the article are reflected in the lead. There is a lot of good information, however some of it may benefit from being placed in a separate section. I would suggest that you create a new section called something like "Description of behaviour" and move some information there, just to break it up and ensure the lead isn't too detailed.

Content: The content added is relevant. I would suggest that the paragraph on brood parasitism in the species section be moved to the brood parasitism section of the article, as it probably doesn't need to be mentioned twice. There are definitely some good additions, however I would suggest you continue to add a more for the final article, to ensure the contribution is meaningful.

Tone: The tone is very neutral throughout the article and presents the information in an unbiased way. Good job!

Sources and References: Not many sources were added, but they are all reliable and mostly recent. Claims are appropriately cited. The links all seem to work.

Organization: The article is mostly well organized and is easy to understand. It may help to add another section to break up the lead. Great job on rewording some of the information so that it flows better. There are a few minor grammatical errors, but overall it is well-done.

Images and Media: Great choice of images to add, they all aid in comprehension of the topic. Good captions. They are well laid out and seem to adhere to copyright regulations.

Overall, this is a good start to improving the article. The edits made are improvements, and the images were a great choice. However, not a lot of content has been added. With a bit of reorganization and further contributions, I think this will be a great article! Ksilver19 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Kensarah1234 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kensarah1234/sandbox Peer Reviewed by kab055mun

The lead do include a clear and concise introductory sentence that defines that topic. The lead does not have a description of the articles major sections rather it provides a description of the behaviour. It includes a brief overview off all topics that are in the article. It is not overly detailed and is easy to read. However, I am unsure of the parts that were edited and the parts that were already in the article. The strategy of clutch coordination is mentioned in the lead but is not present in the article. Other than that everything else in the lead seems to be relevant and elaborated on throughout the article.I am unsure of what content has been added to the article but all of the content is up-to-date and relevant to the topic. I think this editor may have edited the actual wikipedia page as well as the draft? Maybe a section on the history and evolution of egg tossing would be interesting in the article. Some hypothesis of why this behaviour occurs or at what stage in the egg development. Overall the content is good and all of the content that is present is related to the topic. The content is neutral, it does not have a biased towards anything. Nothing in this article is a viewpoint or hypothesis so there is no overrepresentation or biases towards any particular stance. It also does not attempt to persuade the reader. All of the content is sourced. The sources seem to be thorough and up to date. The links to the sources all seem to be working fine. Also includes many different sources to back up the information presented in the article. Every section is easy to read. The sections are clear and concise and I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. It is also well organized with headings and subheadings for each section. Each section then represents a major point of the topic.Lots of images in the article. They are have good captions exampling what is in the picture. Each image is place next to the section where it fits the best and where it is used to illustrate what the section is discussing. The images help the reader understand the behaviour better by providing a visual.Overall this is a good article. It is easy to read and explains the behaviour well. Everything is sectioned very well and all of the information seem to up correct and up to date. As mentioned before I am unsure of what is the information that was added and what was already in the article so I cannot comment on the improvement of the article or the strengths of the content added.