User talk:Ctadams5/sandbox

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? -I think that you should add in a title "Halmahera blossom bat, Syconycteris" it will make it a little clearer, not a huge deal because you do specify the description of the genus Syconycteris in the first sentence. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? -The lead is quite short, but as a matter of broad strokes of commentary about the article, it does its job. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? -The lead is very brief, and focuses mostly on the the genus and specie, there location, while the rest of the article opens up much broader. Maybe try and encompass more topics in the lead to balance out the paper Is anything missing? -As stated above, maybe mention that they are pollinators or adding some more bulk to the lead. Is anything redundant? -With so little, there is no redundancy, but be careful when integrating this into wikipedia because there is some overlap with the already existing stub.

A clear structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? -I would say you have done quite a great job at organizing, each part of the topic is broken down logically. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? -Perhaps is you should some sort of paragraphs and bullet system to get one school of though across, like the similarities and differences between this specie and other bats.

Balanced coverage

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? -Despite the paragraph about clades, relations and genetic testing being the subject to receive the most attention, its clearly a matter of great importance to the article. The following paragraphs are given equal weight in words. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? -I found that due to the original stub being so short, that everything you had to say has a relevant place in the article. Is anything off-topic? -No, but it might be nice to add another title labeled "characteristics"/habitat/life cycle" and under it include some of the "fun facts" in your article about Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? -As perviously mentioned the stub on this was so short, and a bit of research on my own has lead me to conclude that the perspective presented by you is an accurate reflection of the literature. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? -Within the scope of my own research, I could not find anything significant viewpoints that were not covered, or would fit logically into your writing. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -The article does a great job at simply stating facts in an unbiased matter, and doesn't try and push any particular viewpoint. Neutral content Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? -Nope, as mentioned this was very unbiased, and was centered around statements of fact, and all stated in a neutral tone. 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." -One thing that I would recommend is altering the very beginning, for some reason the way it is worded now is just to abrupt, Im not saying it is at all bad or wrong, but simple seems like it could be reworked a bit. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." -Nope, in any case that a claim is made, there is an accompanied citation from a reliable source. 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. -I can't state enough that this was a fantastic representation of a clear dispassionate display of just source facts, negative and positive have no concept here.

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? -Without exception all of the sources used were scientific peer review journals, clearly displayed and linked. 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. -Every citation listed was from a different source, so each statement was coming from a unique article, the article presented itself to be very well balanced. 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! -After reading through some of these articles, and wow they are long, I found that each statement that was attributed to a sources mirrored either the entire message of that statement, or was backed up in the article.

Great edit honestly.

Reaction

To change this article according to the suggestion I will expand on the opening, which I took directly from the original article, opening with my own changes. Encompassing more topics that appear later in the article. I will add that they are pollinators. I will present the subjects chronologically with subheadings, or with a paragraph/bullet system. I would add the characteristics/habitat/life cycle, but I added all the info I could find on those subjects unique to the species. Any additions would be redundant to the broader pages. I will change the beginning to be less abrupt. Connor Adams (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Walker: Peer Review 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? The lead makes sense and gets very brief and to the point 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, the lead is like an extremely brief summary of the important parts of the article. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead doesn't focus on the phenotypic traits that are presented, but I don't think it should since the lead should just touch the most important part. 4. Is anything missing? I think that the article is extremely short and lacks information that could be added. 5. Is anything redundant? I don't think there is anything that is redundant. A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? There aren't any sections presented in the article. 7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I think the article would be helped if the section regarding size, coloration, and fur was actually separated off. Balanced Coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Again, there aren't any sections and I think it would help the presentation to separate it out a little. 9. Are there sections in the articcle that seem unnecessary? The pregnant bat statistic isn't unnecessary, but the formating is a little confusing for the statistics. 10. Is anything off-topic? Everything is on topic. 11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? The articles used for the references just seem to be informational and not really research based except for the bat size measurements. 12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I think bringing in an evolutionary standpoint as that was sort of the point of the stub. 13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, again it is all factual, almost like it is all statistics. Neutral Content 14. Do you thing you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, it is very neutrally written. 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." All of the information presented is factual and doesn't sound like it is opinionated in any way. 16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, all data comes from specified resources. 17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? It is all statements of fact and the the information is all neutral. 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? Both sources are from journals and seem to be reliable. 19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it many lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. There are only two sources for the sandbox out of the 10 required. 20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? I feel like for the paper written for this, each statement obtained from research should be intext cited. Even after every sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.29.188.229 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)