User talk:BCBulldog2023/White-footed mouse

Peer Review

I liked your edits for the article a lot. One main thing I would say is that instead of rephrasing words from the sources you should also add more information that is not just citations. Also I liked the new sections you added for the article I think more of the infrastructure should be discussed in your article since you want to connect to the urban environment. Curioussoul25 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! A note on organization - all of the words written in the sandbox are our own! :) We do plan to add more clarifying statements to make the information more accessible to the readers, but we will not make any statements that cannot be backed by research. A note on images - I like the idea of including photos of mice in Central/Prospect parks! We will certainly try our best to include some images! Alfielevitski (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2

I like the way it is organized and the structure shown. I think it be a good option to consider how is the interaction between white footed mouse with other urban animals and if they benefit from each other Ecology(Species) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecology(Species) (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, however I am confused by what you meant by "relating it to other species in the urban area" as our main focus is how natural selection induces the uprise of white-footed mice. Can you further enlighten your feedback? Thank you for your time. Cynthia1u2 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Chelsei.L Peer Review

Lead section: We are not planning to include any kind of general information about the species because that is already included in the original article. The focus of our section is on natural selection acting on urban mice.

Content section: We do explicitly state that we are discussing mice populations that inhabit urban forests (e.g. Central and Prospect Parks). We are not planning to remove anything from the original article.

Tone and Balance: We do plan to further edit our sections to make them more accessible for regular Wikipedia readers. At present it contains a lot of scientific jargon that may be unclear to readers.

Sources and References: We do not plan to discuss species interactions or ecological impact of the white footed mouse for two major reasons. One reason being that these topics fall outside of the scope of our chosen theme (natural selection). The second reason being that we did not identify any significant and reliable sources discussing these topics from an urban evolutionary perspective.

Organization: I agree that the language and word choice of our draft needs to be edited to make it easier to understand. We have not yet considered adding visuals to our section, but we will take this suggestion into account.

Overall Impression: Thank you for your review Chelsei! :) It was very detailed and highly informative. I appreciate the time and thought you put into writing the review and we will definitely be taking some of your suggestions into consideration! Alfielevitski (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]