User talk:Ki husky/sandbox

-What does conspecific mean? Had to google this. -at the end of the first paragraph, "psychology and psychological well-being" instead of "phsychological and psychological well-being." I might remove "psychological well-being" altogether, seems redundant. -"Percent not giving this" is strange language to use for the table under purpose. Maybe "Percent not provided" or potentially just invert the percent and do "Percent Provided?" -No source for table? -1% of staff don't feed their animals? and only 41% consider it important? -Under "Auditory Enrichment" the citations are out of order at the end of the sentence "... effective enrichment remains inconclusive." -Under "Training" third sentence "the the device." SmoothMcGrooves (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Lead: Most Wikipedia pages bold the topic word, in this case "environmental enrichment". You may also want to link to the other "environmental enrichment" page with a short explanation of the difference. Maybe this page could be called "environmental enrichment (animal husbandry)" to differntiate the two? The lead sentence is a great summary sentence. I would suggest perhaps adding a second sentence that briefly summarizes active and passive enrichment. Purpose: Good section. Maybe change the wording of "% never giving this" in the table to be more clear. "% of staff that never give this enrichment" or something like that. It might also be nice to show which rows in the table would be considered "active" and "passive," to connect it to the sections below, though I don't think this is necessary to understanding. Passive/Active Enrichment: Sections provide a good concise description of each type of enrichment with helpful examples to demonstrate each. I think some of these might benefit from a picture. In the olfactory section there is a typo: "tree brach". Issues and Concerns: Great section, recognizes the potential downsides/challenges to enrichment. References: References for the most part look good, from peer reviewed journals or actual zoos. All of the above paragraphs are well-referenced throughout. One source I'm unsure meets Wikipedia standards is number 8, www.arkanimals.com, because it appears to be a single-author, self-published site. Overall, excellent article! KersteM (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)