User talk:Pondmatt/sandbox

Peer Review
Good job with your article, what you have written so far is well done! With that said, I think it might benefit from further fleshing out ideas, and inclusion of some headings/sub headings to better organize information. You definitely know better than me about the scope of the literature on cephalopod intelligence, but incorporating information from a few more articles on the subject might help. Also, I think I think your article would benefit from focusing directly on the specifics of cephalopod intelligence rather than intelligence in general. Lastly I think you did a good job in writing clearly and remaining neutral.

Nice Work! Orpm97 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pondmatt's second peer review
The edits you plan to make are great, and will really round out the overall information in the original article. The subheadings you've added would all be beneficial additions to the main article, as long as the article is then organized into sections (i.e. on Problem solving, encompassing the "Dexterity", "Communication" and "Tool Use" that already exist, along with your addition on Behaviour). The "Brain size" subheading, though, I feel is unnecessary as a subheading, but rather just as more information on the pre-existing "Brain-to-Body ratio" section. Overall, really good job and keep up with the additions to your draft and eventually your article. You already have a bunch of articles and references listed as Further Readings, so those may help you contribute to your new sections you'll create. As stated by the user above, all the content you've added is neutral and well-written, with minor syntax errors that will be worked out when writing the final draft. Awesome work.

RadicalDolphin2 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)