User talk:ESE98/Mate choice copying/Bibliography
Peer review
General info Peer Review of ESE98's article draft titled "Mate choice copying". Peer reviewed by Debm73.
Lead Strong lead that introduces the topic well.
Content Good amount of content on the topic.
Tone and Balance Goode neutral content. Good article tone and balance.
Sources and References Good amount of sources. Good use of scholarly sources.
Images and Media Adding images and media will help strengthen the article
Overall impressions Great article draft. Strong start. Please see "images and media" section of the peer review for information on how to improve the article.
Peer Review of Mate Choice Copying by User Ehong25
[edit]Lead
[edit]The lead is clear and represents the rest of the article well. It does a good job explaining the topic and its relevance. The lead is a nice length and contains just enough information to tell the reader's what the article is about. I like that it mentions a couple of examples of species that the behaviour has been observed in. I would suggest removing the last sentence which states what the article will elaborate on, as it sounds more like an essay than a Wikipedia page.
Content
[edit]The content is well written and much more complete than the original article. All the content included is relevant and helpful in explaining the topic. Nothing seems to be out-of-date. The chosen content is consistent and represents the most important points of the behaviour.
Tone and Balance
[edit]The article is presented from an unbiased, neutral point of view. There are no points made in an attempt to sway the reader's opinion. The section on "Alternative hypotheses" does not try to push one idea over another. The article is well balanced.
Sources and References
[edit]The sources chosen are appropriate and relevant to the topic. A good amount of credible scientific papers were used in informing the article. The references section and embedded citations are done properly and links contained in the references open correctly. The user's bibliography makes nice use of a variety of sources with info on the behaviour in many different species.
Organization
[edit]The sections chosen reflect the most important points of the article. The draft is easily read and quite clear. There are some minor grammatical mistakes to be fixed before publishing the final article. In regards to the layout, I would recommend changing the "Evolutionary Origin", "Mechanism", etc... sections to the heading format and the "Benefits to Females", "Benefits to Males", etc... sections to the sub-heading 1 format to follow the layout of other Wikipedia articles a little better.
Images and Media
[edit]At this point, there are currently no images or media contained in the article. Some images of species that perform the behaviour could be potentially included?
Overall impressions
[edit]Overall, a nicely done article! The draft has definitely improved the total quality of the article. It was a good idea to add sections about the actual mechanism of behaviour, as well as the proposed alternative hypotheses. If possible, I think it would be nice to see some more information added to the "Costs" section. It would be interesting to elaborate a little more on how this behaviour does not always benefit the animal. Another small suggestion, I would recommend putting the scientific names of the mentioned species into brackets after the common names instead of using a comma. This would clean up the article a little and make it easier to tell which scientific name belongs to which animal. Good job, this is a really interesting topic!Ehong25 (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)