Hi, this is my peer review of your article.
I thought it was very good! Your writing is very clear and well-supported by the articles that you cite, and your wrote very neutrally. My few suggestions are these:
"Whole Object Assumption--Criticisms" 1. The few lines under the subheading "criticisms" are just worded a little strangely; as is, it reads, "While this assumption is often supported, it is important to note the criticisms against it. One popular criticism is that evidence is only provided for children 18 months and older. However, more current study strengthened the breadth of ages and stimuli conditions under which this assumption occurs." I think it could sound better if it were written something like "While the whole object assumption is generally accepted, it is important to note that there are criticisms of it. One such criticism is that research of this phenomenon is mostly centered on children 18 months and older; however, more current research spans the breadth of ages and stimuli conditions under which this assumption occurs." I think that this could also possibly use a citation about the research which has expanded the ages of participants tested.
"Taxonomic Assumption--Domain specificity" 2. I think this paragraph could just use one more line that specifically talks about the evidence against taxonomic assumptions in identifying causality or classical conditioning--you cite an article, just write what they found specifically to balance the positive example
Review of things that you didn't write: (I realize that this isn't my job to review, but what you added was very good and doesn't need much work)
1. I think that the "criticisms" section overall needs a citation to a particular study which makes the claims that were written about. The information and examples are there, but they are not cited.
"Taxonomic Assumption" 2. This section is very good, but even though the writer gave credit to Markman and linked to her page, there should be a little blue number that links to the list of citations at the bottom.
3. Same as above for the paragraph about the study by Backscheider & Markman.
Summary of deleted review (RadSpoon)
editHi All, The review I made earlier was removed, so instead of trying to say everything I had I'm just going to mention the most salient points.
The "criticisms" and "domain-specificity" for all sections need revision to be more informative and less persuasive.
The best stylistic approach is the intro paragraph under Mutual Exclusivity; this could be helpful for revising the other sections
More citations needed throughout.
The choice of additional sections and change in formatting from the original article are good and appropriate.