I think overall the contributions you have made are great! The suggestions I will be making are very minor as I think your work so far is really well done. Great job!
- Flight Zone
I think instead of using a semi colon in the first sentence you could instead break this up into two different sentences. I think you could add a little bit more content in this section to explain what the article will be talking about! What you have so far however, is quite interesting.
- Wildlife Management
In the third sentence of this section you should put the word correlated in present tense. I also think you could remove the comma after the word "that" in the second paragraph in sentence three. I think a strong aspect of this section is how you covered the different characteristics and variations regarding the FID.
- Animal Handling
A minor grammatical correction in this section, "it's" should be used without the apostrophe here to be "its". I think that explaining what a cattle flight zone is might be helpful for someone who is unfamiliar with this topic area. I agree with what Julia earlier suggested that a nice addition to your article would be to use some specific examples. This would help support the content and give a better understanding of these topics to the reader. Great work so far! I really enjoyed reading this article. Nlstudent18 ( talk) 20:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Matt!
I really enjoyed reading your contributions to the Flight zone article, and I think you’ve done an absolutely fantastic job improving it so far. As Dr. Wilson mentioned, the point of peer feedback is to be constructive and try to help improve the article from a different point of view. Also, what I am critiquing is only a rough draft and you may not have finished making changes. Therefore some of the changes I will mention you may already have planned to change anyways. Below I have listed some comments that you could consider as potential edits to your article as we move forward towards our final article drafts!
I think the lead for this article is still lacking in terms of content. The main contribution that you have added so far is in the wildlife management section, however in the lead this only get a couple sentences, so perhaps consider adding one or two more sentences to the led to ensure the proportionality of importance remains correct.
In terms of the specifics of what you have added, I think the content is great! I think that the number one change you should make is adding some specific examples to the sections you have worked on. For example, you say that FID varies between urban and rural animals. I think if you are going to make this statement, you need to include studies which show this to prove your point, especially because this sentence is a claim which is not cited. Similarly, you state that some physical characteristics are important in determining the FID of an animal. Since that is a claim, I think you should try and find a citation in support of it.
In addition, I think adding some linked key words would be advantageous for any of the terminology or species you decide to use which might not be familiar to a layperson. For example, if you find a study which talks specifically about urban versus rural birds, you could link those species to their respective Wikipedia article.
For the section you’ve added to on animal handling, you talk about cattle flight zones. I think it would be valuable to mention the study from which this information came, as well as perhaps including some of the experimental results (briefly) that show these statements to be true. For example, if you say novel situation increase the flight zone, perhaps mention a study that showed cattle put in new areas tended to move a greater distance than those who were repeatedly placed in the same environment, etc.
Your references were all properly cited, so that is excellent, but a few of them do not have links to find the article itself. While I’m not sure if that is an absolute requirement, I think it would be ideal so that other people could go look at the research for themselves more accessibly. Your contributions are definitely improving this important article. Great job!
--Julia. Js7581 ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think overall the contributions you have made are great! The suggestions I will be making are very minor as I think your work so far is really well done. Great job!
- Flight Zone
I think instead of using a semi colon in the first sentence you could instead break this up into two different sentences. I think you could add a little bit more content in this section to explain what the article will be talking about! What you have so far however, is quite interesting.
- Wildlife Management
In the third sentence of this section you should put the word correlated in present tense. I also think you could remove the comma after the word "that" in the second paragraph in sentence three. I think a strong aspect of this section is how you covered the different characteristics and variations regarding the FID.
- Animal Handling
A minor grammatical correction in this section, "it's" should be used without the apostrophe here to be "its". I think that explaining what a cattle flight zone is might be helpful for someone who is unfamiliar with this topic area. I agree with what Julia earlier suggested that a nice addition to your article would be to use some specific examples. This would help support the content and give a better understanding of these topics to the reader. Great work so far! I really enjoyed reading this article. Nlstudent18 ( talk) 20:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Matt!
I really enjoyed reading your contributions to the Flight zone article, and I think you’ve done an absolutely fantastic job improving it so far. As Dr. Wilson mentioned, the point of peer feedback is to be constructive and try to help improve the article from a different point of view. Also, what I am critiquing is only a rough draft and you may not have finished making changes. Therefore some of the changes I will mention you may already have planned to change anyways. Below I have listed some comments that you could consider as potential edits to your article as we move forward towards our final article drafts!
I think the lead for this article is still lacking in terms of content. The main contribution that you have added so far is in the wildlife management section, however in the lead this only get a couple sentences, so perhaps consider adding one or two more sentences to the led to ensure the proportionality of importance remains correct.
In terms of the specifics of what you have added, I think the content is great! I think that the number one change you should make is adding some specific examples to the sections you have worked on. For example, you say that FID varies between urban and rural animals. I think if you are going to make this statement, you need to include studies which show this to prove your point, especially because this sentence is a claim which is not cited. Similarly, you state that some physical characteristics are important in determining the FID of an animal. Since that is a claim, I think you should try and find a citation in support of it.
In addition, I think adding some linked key words would be advantageous for any of the terminology or species you decide to use which might not be familiar to a layperson. For example, if you find a study which talks specifically about urban versus rural birds, you could link those species to their respective Wikipedia article.
For the section you’ve added to on animal handling, you talk about cattle flight zones. I think it would be valuable to mention the study from which this information came, as well as perhaps including some of the experimental results (briefly) that show these statements to be true. For example, if you say novel situation increase the flight zone, perhaps mention a study that showed cattle put in new areas tended to move a greater distance than those who were repeatedly placed in the same environment, etc.
Your references were all properly cited, so that is excellent, but a few of them do not have links to find the article itself. While I’m not sure if that is an absolute requirement, I think it would be ideal so that other people could go look at the research for themselves more accessibly. Your contributions are definitely improving this important article. Great job!
--Julia. Js7581 ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)