User talk:TOliver9712/sandbox

Hi! This is the talkpage for my user sandbox! If you are a student assigned to view my article draft, click on my username to access my sandbox and give constructive criticisms.

~TOliver9712

Peer Review of TOliver9712's article draft of "Morgan's Canon" by Zh 3538
Peer review of TOliver9712’s article draft of “Morgan’s Canon” by Zh3538

Link to article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TOliver9712/sandbox

Lead: From what I understand you are not editing much of the original article before the “evaluation” section so that is why there is no lead in your article draft. If this is the case, I think that you should update the lead to include the new elements you have contributed to the article (the new sections under applications in animal populations).

Content: The content is up to date and relevant to the topic. I really like how you expanded it to talk about it in real world applications such as mating displays and competition.

Tone and Balance: The content is neutral and there are no heavy biases within the article draft, even when talking about the controversy surrounding cognitive awareness in animals.

Sources and References: Almost all of the content is backed up by proper sources. I did however notice some facts in the article that were not backed up by a source so I would try to find some good sources for those (i.e. some fact-based sentences in the 2nd paragraph under “evaluation” are missing sources). The sources that were listed were great sources (all scientific articles/journals) and up to date. I checked a few of the links of the sources and they all worked which is great.

Organization: The content added was very well-written and clear. The contribution has minimal spelling and grammatical errors, but there were a few that need to be fixed (i.e. the second last sentence in the mating displays paragraph has a comma where a period belongs.) You have organized your contributions to the article very well using headings and subheadings.

Images and Media: I think it’s great that you added a picture to your contribution since the original article was lacking one. The caption of the picture is great and it does adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. The structural lay out of the picture is great. I suggest adding another picture to complement the part where you talk about competition in different butterfly species. Perhaps a picture of a species of butterfly that shows these behaviours.

Overall impression: I think the content you added really improved the quality of the article. The way you organized your contributions had a nice flow to it. The grammar need to be fixed in a few places, but besides that and my suggestion to add a picture of a butterfly species with competition using visual signs, your contribution to the article is very well done. Zh3538 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)