User talk:Rb1359/sandbox

Article review: - Opening paragraph is well formed and introduces the topic well - Siblicide: - this paragraph is a little disorganized. It is called siblicide (I assume due to your statement that it is the most common) but you write almost equally about the parents killing the young. I would suggest either renaming the paragraph or restating it making the topic more focused on siblicide. Also rephrasing the 2 sentences on facultative and obligate brood reduction to make them more accessible and clear to someone who may have never heard those words might be good as well. -Brood paratism: good paragraph, lays out the info in an easy read format. A few minor spelling error in this paragraph and the last to note - Examples section: - this section is a bit redundant. It would more beneficial to the article to explain and go into detail of how each species does brood parasitism instead of simply listing them - Lack's hypothesis section: - good paragraph, sentence that says test of hypothesis should be elaborated on - Good topic and seems well researched! A few minor tweaks but overall good job! Reganmv10 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

IJB043 Peer Review
Siblicide

-Neutral with information presented and well written, perhaps create a separate section specifically for filial infanticide, or perhaps change the header to simply Infanticide to incorporate filial and siblicide. Provide source for facultative and obligate brood reduction.

Brood parasitism

-Perhaps change the wording from "relying on the host parents" to "relying on the host's parents". Overall well constructed and presented section with proper sources.

Examples of Brood reduction

-Seems fine

Lack's Hypothesis

- Overall well done, I don't see anything wrong with this section. Well written and concise.

Criticisms of the hypothesis

- Perhaps run the two first sentences together into one sentence, so instead of starting the second with "studies show" simply continue the first sentence explaining why competition remains a factor.

IJB043 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great work on the article draft! You've presented lot's of information on the topic at hand, with a crazy number of good sources (awesome!), and I agree with our ?2? other peers that your article is really well-written, concise and neutral.

I agree with them on the fact, however, that your section on "Siblicide" shouldn't be named that, but rather "Infanticide" as a method of brood reduction, because it's not only the siblings that contribute to the killing of the smaller, weaker, younger offspring. Of course, you know more about the topic than me, so maybe Siblicide as a separate section from other forms of infanticide would be appropriate, where siblicide is in fact the most common way that brood reduction occurs in this manner, but that is left to your discretion.

As for the brood reduction section, the only changes I believe should be made are to make the sentences flow nicer and make some more general. You seem to state facts in very short sentences, which is the proper way to do things (especially when writing a scientific paper), however I believe that melding these statements together in a coherent way would be beneficial to less educated readers. The statement on cowbirds should be less specific to the 2 mentioned in the paper and more general. For example, "many species of cowbird are obligate brood parasites, including the Shiny Cowbird, and the Screaming Cowbird, who frequently parasitize the nests of the Brown-and-yellow Marshbird, ...".

Lastly, I think that the Lack hypothesis should be a section on it's own with the criticisms as a subparagraph. This may have been what you planned to do. All of these edits I've proposed are quite minor and probably would've been fleshed out throughout the drafting process anyway, because your article draft is phenomenal and I'm very impressed. Keep it up.

RadicalDolphin2 (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)