Talk:Predictive Adaptive Response

A lead section that is easy to understand Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? -The lead does a great job at starting broad and getting a good coverage on the entire article. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? -In a way yes, and in a way no. The lead does its job at explaining what the over view of the article will encompass, but makes no mention of the hypothesis that compose a good 2/3rd of the rest of your article, perhaps find a way to just briefly introduce that and it should be perfect.

Response: The introduction of the hypothesis will serve me well. Thanks for the feedback

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? -Yes, as mentioned above, the lead does a great job at introducing and explaining predictive adaptive response, but gives no mention to the hypothesis of the studies.

Is anything missing? A title for the topic! such a great piece of writing needs a title to introduce it!

Response: Great catch. I will be sure to add it.

Is anything redundant? -Try as hard as I might I could not find any redundancy in your lead, each sentence is a different statement of fact that is sourced. Dont change perfection.

A clear structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order?

-As far as grammar and structure, the article flows very clean, but would be probably nice if there was some breaks in the though process, to separate the statements and schools of thought.

Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? -A separate paragraph with a subheading for both the "thrifty phenotype" hypothesis and the "developmental plasticity" hypothesis, this would clearly label the two.

Response: Great idea!

Balanced coverage Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? -Each section offers its new statement or hypothesis, and accordingly they are all nearly equal in terms of weight and substance on the topic. A great job at giving equal attention to all postulations. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? -When integrating this into wikipedia, be careful not to run into redundancies with what is already wrote currently on the wiki stub, within the first paragraph there is a lot of similar information. Is anything off-topic? -The questions asked and research conducted are all relevant to the idea of predictive adaptive response, and given quite good reason to have representation, it would be hard for me to say that something is out of place. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? -After conducting some of my own research on the topic, I found myself on one of the cited sources in the article. The hypothesis listed are the most up-to-date thoughts from the scientific community and is reflected so in the article. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? -Again, from the research that I did, I found that you went above and beyond covering every viewpoint, since im sure you have done more research that me, i can think that only you will know if an alternative viewpoint was not covered. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -By shedding light onto the two main theories and the fact that there is more research to be conducted indicates that the author is not trying to get me to believe a certain point, but rather that they are giving me the facts and letting me decide.

Neutral content Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? -No, all the postulated theories were cast in a neutral tone, and I could not find the hint of any bias. equal value was give to all theories. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." -All I can say is if I were to make any changes, it would be a more in depth seg-way into the different hypothesis, and as I mentioned, i think adding paragraphs for these would help achieve that. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." -Nearly every statement of fact has a corresponding citation, so it is no surprise to me that i'm pleased to report I found nothing of the sort. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. -The article focuses on literature that is already out there, and strays away from lumping anything into a positive or negative light for the purposes of convincing or deceiving.

Reliable sources Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? -Every source came from either a scientific journal or was linked to the actual study conducted itself. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. -Not only do these statements come from different sources, but the majority of them do not conclude the same thing, and represent different schools of thought, on top of that equal writing was done on behalf of all the topics, implying that none was the base for an entire section of elaboration. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! -From what I can see, the sources that are quoted are either directly the same as what is stated in the article, or is the focus of the article entirely and absolutely backs up the claims made in the wiki article.

A lead section that is easy to understand 1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, The lead explains the topic well enough and leads into the rest of the article 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes it does. It explains what is important. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No, everything it talks about is weighted equally 4. Is anything missing? nope 5. Is anything redundant? nope

A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? It is orgamnized well, the only issue is there is no divisions between sections really

Response: I will be sure to incorporate that. 7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? See number 6

Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Yes, the lengths are about equal to their relevance 9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? No, every section seems necessary 10. Is anything off-topic? No, there is no off-topic information 11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Yes it does, it reflects the perspectives that are represented in literature 12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No, all significant viewpoints are represented 13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it remains neuthral throughout the entire article

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No because it remains neutral throughout 15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No because it remains neutral throughout 16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No because it remains neutral throughout 17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No because it remains neutral throughout

Reliable sources 18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Most statements in the article are connected to a reliable source, all of them are primary sources 19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, every source is used equally 20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Every statement in the article has a source that is in the references Mfkamowski (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)