User talk:Sarahkwhelan/Burrow

Peer review on Burrow (Sburton17)
The introductory information added is good. It gives a good idea of what the article will be about, maybe add some information on protection in the lead. For the first little bit that was already a part of the article, be sure to cite where that information came from because the previous editor or creator of the article did not. I am not sure if that is necessary but it would make the Wikipedia article much more reliable. Your references for the information you added are good. All reference links work and open up. The content added is neutral and is purely informative, great job. All of the information added is supported by citations. When using an article, maybe look at the year it was published because more recent articles are preferred. I really like how you added your own section to the article rather than just adding to the sections that were already created. When reading over your contribution to the article, consider cutting long sentences into two shorter sentences. This will help improve clarity. If you are going to include the heading "fossil burrows" then I would recommend adding additional information into that section. I agree with the other peer-review that a section on physical properties would be great. All information provided is relevant to the topic. The article is well organized into the different headings and overall it is well-done.

Peer Review on Burrow (Rp8848)
- The different types of categories was written very well with great examples, could possibly be its own section with a header. - Could find a citation to support the estimation of how much dirt a single groundhog displaces. (Although this wasn't a part of your edit, this would increase the overall reliability of the article). - Lead is informative, you could possibly add more information on protection to suggest what is to come later in the article. - Content is neutral, no apparent bias. Great wording choices. - Could possibly add a section on the physical properties of burrows. - Could find more examples to support claims in "Protection" section. For example, the Earwig reference was beneficial and made the information more clear. - All links to citations work. - Each fact added by the editor is supported by reliable references. - Could look into finding a more recent paper for citation [2] - Seems as though citation [6] needs the date values checked. May just be inappropriate format of citation. - All of the information was related to the topic. - "This provides a benefit to the animal as it can keep food away from other competition, and it also allows the animal to keep a good stock of food inside the burrow to avoid extreme weather conditions or seasons where certain food sources may be unavailable[2]." Could possibly be broken into two sentences. - Has a clear structure, overall organized well. Section lengths are proportional to importance.

Overall, great job and good luck finishing up! Rp8848 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Rp8848