User talk:Mfkamowski/sandbox

Nate Wasylk - Peer Review

A lead section that is easy to understand

1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The lead of the topic is from the original article then the experimental studies added come afterwards. Maybe consider consolidating the original source with your own in order to smooth out the transition between the lead and the experimental studies.

2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The lead from the original article gives a good baseline of information for the experiments presented. Incorporating information from the studies into the lead may be a good idea.

3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead gives equal credence to the essential information needed to gain a basic understanding of strategic pluralism. 4.	Is anything missing? Addition of extra general information about strategic pluralism and its impacts in current science could be added before the experimental studies that have been thoroughly explained. 5.	Is anything redundant? Nothing seems overly redundant. The experimental studies are explained in smooth fashion.

A clear structure

6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? The lead and experimental studies are clearly distinct. Consider including more information about the impacts of the studies performed relating to strategic pluralism in a broader perspective. 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The sections make sense chronologically but consider a smoother transition between the lead and experimental studies with something such as the broader impacts strategic pluralism can have on populations of organisms.

Balanced coverage

8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Consider adding evidence to the lead section so that its length will compare to the section based on the experimental studies.

9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? All article sections are necessary for the complete understanding of strategic pluralism. There is very little fluff in the article. 10.	Is anything off-topic? The article stays on-topic with everything relating to the broader context of the concept of strategic pluralism.

11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? The experimental evidence in the literature is well covered in the paragraphs added to the original article. 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? The author includes the most important studies relevant to strategic pluralism. An additional viewpoint is the research that may done in a broader context related to the current research.

13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The only thing I can tell the writer is trying to convince the reader of is that there have been more experiments performed on humans than animals. Maybe consider removing this information if you do not think it is relevant to presenting the information neutrally.

Neutral content

14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? The perspective is not for or against the concept of strategic pluralism. However, as previously stated consider taking a neutral approach when stating more experiments appear to be done on humans compared to other animals.

15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." A few wordy sentences appear throughout the paragraphs that may need to be rewrote in a more concise fashion. Consider breaking up some of the run-on sentences in the first experimental study paragraph into multiple sentences.

16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." All the experimental study evidence has been credited to whoever performed the original research.

17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article addresses the concept as a whole and does not get hung up on criticism against strategic pluralism or overstating its importance to science. The perspective is given equal negative and positive information.

Reliable sources

18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? No articles appear to be from blogs or self-published authors. The sources all appear to be from reputable literature.

19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. The article appears to have representation from all sources. Consider placing the citing location for source 9 at the end of the sentence.

20.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! The only thing I can see that you may need to include if you can possibly find it in the articles is the dates the articles were published indicated by the red print seen in your draft in the sandbox in the reference section.

The article was overall very informative. I think that there should be more subheadings that direct the reader through the information. I also think adding a picture would be relevant. The information was clear and I did not find myself distracted at any point while reading. The content is neutral as well. Marly Robertson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrobertson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I will go through and divide my article into a few subsections to make the whole layout easier to work through. In the heading I will introduce my studies a little bit to give a bit of info before diving straight into the article. That way there is a little bit of info in the heading that leads into the article more and helps it to flow better. I will add in a bit about its current impacts and future impacts to tie it in to current events as a way of transitioning between the lead and the studies. I can certainly add in some evidence of strategic pluralism to decrease the disparaging length difference between the lead and experimental studies sections. Ont of the biggest things concerning this subject is the lack of studies actually performed on animals concerning it so many studies are psychological studies so I can include this as an additional viewpoint. Again, citing the lack of animal studies that have been performed would remove the push for seeing it as more in humans than animals that I had accidentally formed. I will go back through as well to break up any wordy sentences that I have. I will fix the citation location for source nine. I will also go back and fill in the dates for the articles that I have used as sources. Mfkamowski (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)