Hello! Iryna Harpy I am working on my rough draft of my term article (Information centre hypothesis) and I'm wondering if you have any feedback on it! You can find it at the bottom of my User Page Sandbox, under "Week 6...". Thank you for your help! :) -- Js7581 ( talk) 02:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Js7581! Your article is off to a great start so far — I found that it really grabbed my attention. The purpose of this peer review is to provide constructive feedback that will help to improve the article. I have listed some potential edits for your article that you can consider as you make changes for the final draft.
Here are some comments and potential edits:
I really liked reading your lead section — it was clear, easy to read and understand. The tutorial for this week mentioned that lead sections should give a good indication of what the article is about. Your lead did give a great indication of what the article is about. Notably, your lead does include everything that your article talks about, so that’s great. I had a little trouble understanding what makes a good lead, so I may have missed an improvement for your lead – based on what I learned in the tutorial, your lead does not appear to need improvements. So, I would suggest getting another student to have a second look.
I’m not the best at grammar myself, and after reading your article there was no major grammar errors that stood out to me. I would suggest getting another student to have a second look, as they maybe able to see grammar errors that I am unaware of – I do this all the time. In the first sentence of the third paragraph, under the section “Criticism,” you used the phrase “other believe” and according to this week’s tutorial, that is too board and needs to be specific. I did the same thing in my article, too. Also, when you say that “popularity has also led to substantial criticism, notably regarding the multiple assumptions of the theory, and potentially weak study examples,” what do you mean by weak study examples? After reading your section on “Criticism,” I’m unsure how the studies are weak, or if you mean that other theories for communal roosting (other then feeding advantages) are just not well supported. I think this needs to be clarified (as I was a bit confused) and will improve the understanding of your article. You also say that the information centre hypothesis is adaptive. I think that including information on the adaptive benefits, and going into more depth on why they evolved, would be a great addition to your article. In addition, I think adding information about how the information centre hypothesis is beneficial to the species in your examples is something to consider as well – it will help the readers see why it’s adaptive.
Overall, I think you did an amazing job organizing and structuring your article. All your references are correctly formatted and peer-reviewed, and all your citations are correctly formatted. Your article is neutral, clear and easy to read with great explanations of the material. I also really liked the examples you choose, it adds to the understanding of the article. The tone of the article is encyclopedic and the information is informative and not persuasive. Good Job!
Hello! Iryna Harpy I am working on my rough draft of my term article (Information centre hypothesis) and I'm wondering if you have any feedback on it! You can find it at the bottom of my User Page Sandbox, under "Week 6...". Thank you for your help! :) -- Js7581 ( talk) 02:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Js7581! Your article is off to a great start so far — I found that it really grabbed my attention. The purpose of this peer review is to provide constructive feedback that will help to improve the article. I have listed some potential edits for your article that you can consider as you make changes for the final draft.
Here are some comments and potential edits:
I really liked reading your lead section — it was clear, easy to read and understand. The tutorial for this week mentioned that lead sections should give a good indication of what the article is about. Your lead did give a great indication of what the article is about. Notably, your lead does include everything that your article talks about, so that’s great. I had a little trouble understanding what makes a good lead, so I may have missed an improvement for your lead – based on what I learned in the tutorial, your lead does not appear to need improvements. So, I would suggest getting another student to have a second look.
I’m not the best at grammar myself, and after reading your article there was no major grammar errors that stood out to me. I would suggest getting another student to have a second look, as they maybe able to see grammar errors that I am unaware of – I do this all the time. In the first sentence of the third paragraph, under the section “Criticism,” you used the phrase “other believe” and according to this week’s tutorial, that is too board and needs to be specific. I did the same thing in my article, too. Also, when you say that “popularity has also led to substantial criticism, notably regarding the multiple assumptions of the theory, and potentially weak study examples,” what do you mean by weak study examples? After reading your section on “Criticism,” I’m unsure how the studies are weak, or if you mean that other theories for communal roosting (other then feeding advantages) are just not well supported. I think this needs to be clarified (as I was a bit confused) and will improve the understanding of your article. You also say that the information centre hypothesis is adaptive. I think that including information on the adaptive benefits, and going into more depth on why they evolved, would be a great addition to your article. In addition, I think adding information about how the information centre hypothesis is beneficial to the species in your examples is something to consider as well – it will help the readers see why it’s adaptive.
Overall, I think you did an amazing job organizing and structuring your article. All your references are correctly formatted and peer-reviewed, and all your citations are correctly formatted. Your article is neutral, clear and easy to read with great explanations of the material. I also really liked the examples you choose, it adds to the understanding of the article. The tone of the article is encyclopedic and the information is informative and not persuasive. Good Job!