User talk:Ksilver19/Prusten

Hi! Please leave your feedback here, thanks! Ksilver19 (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(Peer Review of "Prusten" by KaleighSmith) Excellent job! You’ve contributed a great amount of information to this article, and your first draft already looks awesome. Your sources are reliable, and they cover a wide range of information on prusten. I think you’ve done a great job at organizing your information into multiple sections.

It seems you have done extensive research on this topic and have incorporated it into your draft. So, I don’t have many suggestions to offer because I think it looks great. It would be really cool if you added an audio file of this vocalization to accompany the description! Also, photos of these cats with their cubs or prior to mating may be a nice addition. This would allow readers to quickly identify situations in which prusten occurs.

I like how you included the fact that the mechanism of this sound production may result from an evolutionary shift.

Your draft is very well written. I didn’t find any run-on sentences or grammatical errors. Awesome work! KaleighSmith (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This article does a great job of providing high quality and succinct information on the topic. The lead is concise and touches on almost all section topics. Lots of references are high quality and come from the primary literature.

The lead does a good job at briefly describing prusten and conveying important information associated with it. The lead does reference almost all of the sections. However, better inclusion of the “Significance” section could be added. The lead does a good job of balancing the weight of sections equally. The third reference may be inappropriate though. Using the snow leopard trust as a reference may skew the article’s information with a pro-conservation bias if not addressed.

The sections are formatted and organized well. Presenting them in a different order (putting “Purpose” first) should be considered. None of the sections are much more developed than the others, making them more or less equally weighted in the article. This is a good thing as all sections are very important for understanding prusten. I don’t think there is likely to be any perspective that “doesn’t like” prusten so I feel as though the focus on the value of conservation and prusten’s role in it is justified as being the only perspective. If possible, adding perspectives on prusten from hunters, poachers, farmers, industry representatives, or communities that are in conflict with prusten-producing animals may be significant enough to add. Ending the article with the “Significance” section may be a little too close to drawing a “pro-conservation” conclusion around conservation of big cats so that may be something to think about in future editing. The sections are well cited overall.

Overall your draft is great! You may want to add some media like pictures of the animals that chuffle and recordings of prusten as well. Lb6578 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)