User talk:AshlynGray/sandbox
Peer Review for Ashlyn Gray
[edit]I can tell that a lot of work has been put into this draft already. The "evolutionary significance" section is very well written, however I see some incomplete sentences and a few grammatical errors with comma's and periods placed around the references/citations. The "trophallaxis in invertebrates" section although all the text is relevant and good to add to this article it is placed all in the same block, I would suggest maybe making sub-sections here to make it more reader-friendly. There could be a way to group some of these species together and categorize them under a more specific heading. Great article over all, very few grammatical errors and touches to be made!
- Thank you for your advice, it was very helpful. I have checked the grammar in the Evolutionary significance section and broken up the Evolution in invertebrates section like you suggested and I think it has really improved the article.
AshlynGray (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi Ashlyn! You have composed a very well written and heavily referenced article.
Everything you have written is relevant to the topic, and the sections are in a logical order.
The lead section is short and concise with a clear definition of trophallaxis.
I like how you included the origin of the word trophallaxis, this was a great contribution to the original article where this section was unfinished.
The section on the evolutionary significance is very well done. The theories of sociality, communication, and nutrient transfer are all explained well and neither seems to be favoured. This section is also very well referenced.
The section on trophallaxis in invertebrates would be easier to read if perhaps it was broken down instead of one large paragraph. I would suggest either making smaller paragraphs or subsections based on species. Besides this, there a lot of great examples used.
The section on trophallaxis in vertebrates is quite short, but there are 3 good examples given. I would suggest trying to expand a bit on each of the examples or perhaps adding another. In your section on the evolutionary significance, you mention the common cuckoo using trophallaxis, this could either be moved or expanded on in your vertebrate section to even it out.
I checked out the links for your citations, most of which work. However, references 4, 18 and 19 do not have links.
The references you have provided are strong and come from reliable sources, mostly journal articles. None of this information is biased, and it also supports the claims in your article.
I also really like the pictures used and believe they are a good representation of trophallaxis.
After reading your article I now feel I have a good grip on what trophallaxis is.
Overall, you have composed a very well written article that will make a significant contribution to Wikipedia. The original article has a very confusing layout and is unfinished. I feel you did a great job at fixing this article up!
Kyradsimms (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice! I have broken up the Evolution in invertebrates section into smaller paragraphs and added the cuckoo example to Evolution in vertebrates like you suggested and the article looks much better now. I also fixed the references that were missing links, thanks for pointing them out!