User talk:Armystud77/sandbox

Luke's Peer Review:

Both the group draft and the personal draft are well done. The structure looks good and is easy to follow. I can easily tell where content will go. I Made a few grammatical corrections. The reorganization section makes a lot of good suggestions that should be implemented, especially some of the rewriting.

I think in the phylogeny section, a picture of the theoretical phylogeny would be beneficial. Also, a picture in the mating/courtship section of some male characteristics would be cool. Also, be sure to look for possible connections to other wiki pages when writing.

The sources look good, though I think you should find more. The sections are pretty long, so getting 3-4 sources or so would be great.

The tone is neutral, and it looks like the group is contributing fairly equally. I do suggest that within the group section you categorize each member's contributions so we can quickly discern them.

Lunord22 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Lunord22[reply]

Emily: Peer Review

The organization here is really nice and easy to follow!

For the phylogenies referenced, are they available/copyrighted? Would you be able to use them as a visual to clarify the section? The edits to the phylogeny section have a good start, but seem to be a bit wordy and contain some jargon that your typical user wouldn't know. It might be helpful to either swap/drop some words or link to other pages, especially for the scientific names and groupings. Also the in text citations make it a bit difficult to follow. Perhaps a footnote citation alone could clear this up.

The anatomy reorganization section has a good start, but some of the headings under the sensory organs section are pretty brief. Do they need to be subdivided, or will more be added to these sections (eye, etc.)? The A&P section is looking nice, but ends on a fragment. It could also be linked out to other sources for clarification.

In your gameplan it is pretty clear who is doing what, but becomes a bit fuzzier in the revisions section. Maybe tag names alongside edits for clarity?

Great work!RameyEA (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex's Peer Review:

Overall, this is page is very well organized and easy to follow. I can clearly see where the information will fit in the Iguana page. In the future, you should state who contributed to what piece so it is important to contact that person directly instead of the whole group. I like how the group listed the section from the page and then the revisions/edits that you guys are going to make to these sections. As others have stated before me, the phylogeny addition section may be a little too wordy. You guys may want to work on smoothing that section out for your future work as some sentences seem a little too long. In addition, more sources could be used to add extra evidence to your sentences. On the other hand, I do not see any obvious spelling errors and all sources seem credible and important to your topic. This section contains no bias and is written in a neutral tone, so great job. For other future work, it may be beneficial to find a figure or create one of a predicted phylogeny.

Additionally, for the anatomy and physiology reorganization section, I think the information is better organized than what is on the page. I especially thought that the third eye section was better written and was more effective in providing information to the reader. For your other pieces, you may want to elaborate on them or add a couple of sources just to provide better evidence on why you want to reorganize these sections. Overall, these pieces contain no bias and are written in a neutral tone. The sources that your group provided are credible and are all important to the topic. AR12Fan (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aivi: Peer Review

Overall, you did a great job on your drafts. I thought they were written in a neutral tone, and your sources look reliable since you have many of them and they are mostly primary sources. For the "Anatomy Reorganization" section, you could more citations, especially in the Anatomy and Physiology, eyes, eardrums, and reproduction sections

I also think your "Anatomy Reorganization" section could be re-organized into order to make it easier to distinguish which sections you are editing, and what portions are from the original article and which are edited. I would really suggest using more bolding, indentation, bullet points, and the various different heading options that Wikipedia offers to make it look a little cleaner. The division between group and personal drafting is clear, but I would suggest adding a divider or adding some kind of signifier to show who is editing what to ensure the work is divided equally. You might also consider adding a diagram of the male and female reproductive systems to supplement your descriptions.

Here are just a couple copy-edits that I am suggesting:

Original: Male iguanas, like other male examples of Squamata, have two hemipenes. During copulation one hemipene will be inserted into the female's cloacal vent. Females can store sperm from previous mates for several years to continue to fertilize her eggs incase she finds no male in her area when she is ready to lay again.

Edited: Male iguanas, like other male examples of Squamata, have two hemipenes. During copulation one hemipene is inserted into the female's cloacal vent. Females can store sperm from previous mates for several years to continue to fertilize her eggs in the event that she cannot find a male mate when she is ready to lay again.

AICOI (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa's Review

All of the content on the page is written in a neutral tone and your sources all looked good and reliable. I would suggest citing more sources in the Anatomy and Physiology section. Also, I would suggest adding some more images maybe from dissection because the Iguana page does not have very many images of the anatomy. Here is a copy edit that I am suggesting:

Orignal: "A phylogeny based on nuclear protein-coding genes, reviewed by Vidal and Hedges (2009) suggested that the subclade Iguania is in a group with snakes and anguimorphs, which all have an oral gland capable of secreting toxins (a derived trait)."
I would suggest adding links to some of the terms you have in this section if they already have Wikipedia pages for other users that may not know what these are (e.g. snakes, anguimorphs, lepidosaurs).BioBuzz (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)BioBuzz[reply]