User talk:Laurak9/sandbox

A really thorough article you definitely do not need to add more to it then what you already have. Really good use of using examples for every subheading and giving key details about specific species of animal. Maybe try and put the genus and species names for you examples instead of one or the other. All and all a great article maybe just to polish it up and make it look nicer add a few pictures to help support your paragraphs and run the article through a spelling and grammar checker. Sean Comeau (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer review
I would just like the begin by saying that overall, I think this is a great article. The lead is clear and concise, and the importance of the topic is understood. The lead incorporates the most important information. It clearly outlines the main sections covered in the article, but perhaps could broadly mention the ‘functions of vocalizations’ as well. The lead does not over-emphasize any particular section more than another (there is equal distribution).

This article is arranged in a nice order. I like how it begins with the anatomy of sound production in different animal groups, and then goes on to discuss the functions and then social transmission. This order makes it easy to follow. The article sections are equally distributed. It has a good balance overall. I wouldn’t say that any of the information is off-topic. It is clear that this article was well-researched, as there is a lot of pertinent information included.

The information doesn’t appear to argue any particular sides, but instead conveys the information in a balanced/fair way. The article covers various aspects of the topic ‘animal song’. It provides strong examples in each section, and provides examples within different groups of animals, such as birds and frogs. It does not seem to leave out any viewpoint represented in published literature. Overall, the article comes across as neutral. As a whole, the article delivers findings from scientific peer reviewed journals. These sources were distributed fairly/evenly; there was no notable overuse of a source. The statements throughout the article were well-sourced. I only came across a sentence in the ‘Insects’ heading that didn’t include a citation (“Cicadas produce sound at much greater volumes than Orthopterans.”)

The article included a lot of information, which was collected from many reputable journals. Perhaps it would be good to have the ‘Social transmission and Learning’ section organized into subsections (for example, there could be a ‘development’ subsection explaining the sensitive learning period). I think this could serve as an improvement, as there is a great deal of varied information in the section and breaking it up into smaller sections could make it clearer and easier to follow. That said, this is honestly an excellent article, and it was an enjoyable/educational read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanna Naomi (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)