User talk:Tedvogel/Penghu 1

Citations? What sources are you using? How are you improving this entry?

Peer Review
Hi! Your article looks great, but there is a small issue with your sources link and also there is an extra 'an" in the article that I believe was a typo: "inclusion in the species Homo heidelbergensis, or an that they were an adapted form of..." I like how you broke up the page and added headings to make it easier to navigate. One thing I noticed though is some of your sentences run on a little long. It might be easier to read if they were broken up into smaller segments. Overall I feel like it's a well written article with lots of details. Theturtleprincess (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi, Overall, I think your draft was set up very well. You had a lot of detailed information included. It was also nicely set up with the subheadings as it made it clear what it was that would be talked about as you didn't stray away from the topic. Your draft was clear, balanced, and neutral. I only did two copyedits on your article. I also only have two things to suggest. The first is that I would suggest you to split up a few of your longer sentences. I feel like this will allow some of the information to be more clear. In your "Classification" section, there is a sentence that mentions something like "the authors of the First Archaic homo of Taiwan". To this, I would suggest that you provide the author's names if possible as it seems that they played a role in proposing models of the penghu 1. Great Work! Ptama003 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Ted. You have a great article that adds a lot of information to the original. I like how you added the extra sections and broke down each one to provide more background. One thing I would suggest is to support your "Fossil Morphology" section with more sources. Adding sources to this section would strengthen it as a whole. Another thing I would suggest is adding a brief description in the lead that mentions all of your sections in the article. I liked that you remained neutral and unbiased all while mentioning the classification debates. That is a clear strength in your article. Lastly, I would also suggest to re-read some sentences aloud to make sure you have no awkward or run-on sentences. Overall you did a great job and only need some minor changes/additions. I provided more in-depth responses in your peer-review section.Dhern041 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)dhern041