User talk:VolePrincess/sandbox

Feedback on Article
This is a huge improvement over the original! Really nice work. You've added a lot of depth to the article, and covered some important gaps. I have a few specific comments and suggestions for feedback:

- Can you add a citation for the "citation needed" statement about its modern relatives? Are there any papers that say anything about diet, habitat, etc. that could back this up?

- The first three sentences under the Evolution section (about their evolution and migration) need references.

- "Fossil discovery sites have been mainly concentrated in regions of Canada and Alaska. Notable sites include the Baillie Islands, Northwest Territories, Fairbanks and Ikpikpuk River, all of which are located in Alaska. As well as the Ketza River, Scottie Creek and Dawson City, all located in the Yukon." <- This needs a reference (even just the Neotoma DB would be fine, I think) and the last sentence is a fragment. Suggest editing to "Fossils of E. lambei have been primarily found in Canada and Alaska (REF), including the Baillie Islands, Northwest Territories, Fairbanks and Ikpikpuk River in Alaska, and the Ketza River, Scottie Creek and Dawson City in the Yukon (REF).

- The Bluefish Cave section needs references.

- "Fossils derived from these caves were radiocarbon dated between about 17,500 and 13,000 years ago." -> E. lambei fossils? Be specific here.

- "Although it is still debated, it is predicted that a combination of rapid climate change and human predation were likely the driving forces in the elimination of this species." Suggest you edit to: "Although the cause of E. lambei's extinction is debated, it has been hypothesized that that a combination of rapid climate change and human hunting contributed to the elimination of this species." Also, REF needed for this statement.

- The section in mtDNA suggests it was close to other species of horse -- can you use these references to back up the statement in the intro about its closest relatives?

- Throughout the article, you have lots of what are called "unclear antecedents," i.e., you use the term "this" in many cases where it's unclear which "this" you're referring to. When you're mentioning multiple species in a section, for example, it's important to be specific. For example, "Controversy surrounds this species and the divergence of other similar species." In the preceding sentence, you refer to two species of horse. Which species is controversial? Keeping an eye out for these unclear antecedents will make your writing much clearer overall -- I used to make the same mistake myself, until my advisor pointed it out to me. Check the article very carefully for other examples of unclear antecedents -- I noted several.

- The last couple of paragraphs in the evolution section need references. I also see you have one formatted incorrectly (e.g., spelled out rather than numerical).

- Taxon names in the first paragraph under Natural History should be italicized (e.g., Bison priscus). I would also link to those other species' pages.

- Check throughout for incorrectly formatted references (e.g., they should be numbers with hyperlinks to the reference section). There are a few of these under Natural History.

- The section needs references. I really like this section, but make sure you're not making arguments -- this needs a little editing to reflect that you're summarizing other folks' arguments, not advocating for a position (remember, Wikipedia must be neutral!).

- Are there any good Creative Commons images you can use? Check the CC Flickr pool, or look for government images for good sources.

Really great work overall! This is well written and very informative.

IceAgeDoc (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on Outline
Hi, team Equus lambei! I'm excited to see your outline. I have a few comments as you start to draft page content:

Make sure you only use original peer-reviewed sources, not news articles that derive from those sources. For example, the LiveScience article you link to is not a primary source; the peer-reviewed article it links to would be better.

I really like the idea of using the mammoth article as a good base, and developing either Equus lambei or Arctotherium (both may be ambitious, but go for it if you're keen!) along those lines. Having a model to draw on will be useful, especially for formatting the taxonomy, etc.

See if you can find some images in the public domain to illustrate your article. Make sure they're CC licensed!

At this point, you should be drafting your page and filling out your outline. If no previous page exists, you'll start from scratch. If there's a stub, you can copy the source text to your Sandbox, which is where your edits will end up. Send me an email when you're ready for some article feedback, before you start to port edits over to the article page. IceAgeDoc (talk)

Choosing an Article
This is a good range of topics, as species-level articles are often under-developed. I would have liked to see a sentence or two specifying what you might add specifically. My recommendation would be to go with one of the two where you have the most possible references (the Equus, ideally). When you choose a final article, make sure you take a look at some other similar articles, and come up with a good outline in your Sandbox. IceAgeDoc (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Evaluate an Article
Nice work on the article evaluation. I especially liked that you went into the page history and the Talk page to get a sense of what had been done, and what was needed. Just one thing -- make sure you use headings, so that different topics on your sandbox are esaily distinguishable. IceAgeDoc (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)