User talk:TheRedHusky/sandbox

Dwyer_PeerReview_Payne

Introduction: Strong. More concise and more scientific in its approach than previous form. Not sure if it would make sense for the introduction to summarize all information covered, but I like it in its current form.
Physiology section: three sentences start with “males”
- Combine the two sentences describing body mass and measurements Senses section: Lacking clarity when referring to the tear glands. Perhaps an image of “eye rings” could be helpful.
-I like the separation of paragraphs
Life History: Removing evaluative language like “extremely” was a good choice
Migration and vagrancy: First sentence of added material doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps incorporate links that help define “parasite load” or what you mean by “stranding”
-Not sure if the consumption of snow to stay hydrated fits in with this section
Seal Hunting: maybe defense isn’t the best word to describe the seals’ actions? “Response”

Overall: Organization: Good use of headings and subheadings, as well as separation into paragraphs. Made reading much clearer.
Sources: There seems to be a wide range of balanced and professional sources. Citations still need to be directly linked within the article while some sections (like the senses section) don’t seem to actually make reference to citations section at all.
Tone was scientific, gave the idea of expertise. Removed emotional, qualitative language in original article
Gaps: Some gaps could perhaps be filled. Encyclopedia Britannica includes information about diet that the Wikipedia page currently lacks. Also, the distribution map on the current Wikipedia page isn’t very legible, and could perhaps also be fixed.
Reorganization: All information present was strong, but could be reshuffled slightly. For example, the consumption of snow to stay hydrated didn’t really fit into the migration section, and could perhaps be moved to a “diet” or “life” section.
Smaller Additions: All small additions felt relevant, and weren’t superfluous. NUBioStudent (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Lin_P3PR

I agree that the edits made were all relevant. - The edits unified the tone into a more professional one. - I liked that some places were cut or combined to make a tighter article and the spacing places that you fixed -sources seem trustworthy -I don't understand the part about synonym in the introduction? -The last part about harp seals freezing seems out of place at the end. Perhaps move it to the beginning of hunting or under physiogy. Also consider rephrasing sitting ducks to match with the rest of the tone. Perhaps "easy targets"?. -I agree that the section about sexual dimorphism was repetitive with the males and females in every sentence. I like the original a little bit better. -With a few more smaller edits, this will be a much improved article.

Jxxl (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)