User talk:Natefbennett/sandbox

Hi Nate. You have a good start on your bibliography, but you've missed a couple of potentially relevant citations, e.g., DiFiore et al. 2005, and Nishimura 2003. Also, check some of the other behavior papers to see if they might have relevant information, such as DiFiore et al 2006 or Stevenson 1998. Defler 2004 might have some infor, though this is in Spanish. Sharley might be able to help you there, or I might be able to. Finally, you can check the references in the papers you have. Overall, I would try to beef this up a bit. You have contributed the required number of citations to the master bibliography, but unfortunately, most of these are not accessible to us. Njclum (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you looked at the Defler and Hartwig papers? These do not appear to be related to your topic of breeding behavior, but I have not read them yet.Njclum (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Outline

Hi Nate: The structure of your outline is fine, but it should include the specific information that you intend to input into the article, as well as the source of that information. In addition, remember that when you are discussing shared characteristics, that you are shooting for the species level. It is fine to include some introductory comments such as: "like other members of the genus Lagothrix (or other higher taxonomic group), Lagothrix lagotricha has (characteristics X, Y, and Z). Go from general to more specific. Also, your modified bibliography lists the Hartwig paper twice.Njclum (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

1. The structure is fine and finishes one topic before moving to the next.
2. The information is non-bias
3. Citations are present for the information provided
4. The sources are reliable
5. Sources seem to be complete
6. The information here is fine and good. However, I can’t help but feel that there could be SLIGHTLY more information to feel complete. But I haven’t looked into the
morphology so maybe that is all there is. Either way the information present is clear and concise and well organized.
Nrdyer88 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Rough Draft

Hi Nate: You've organized the material well, but I agree with Nathan that it does seem like there should be a bit more on this subject. Perhaps there was some confusion about what should be included in this section.Njclum (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]