User talk:Reillymcarr/sandbox

Neil's peer review

Hi! Neil here, ready to peer-review your article draft.

...

First off, super cool topic. I'm jealous. Evolutionary ecology is very interesting. I'll provide some comments/thoughts in the bulletted section below.

First, I'd suggest copying-and-pasting the original content (in Wikipedia formatting) into your sandbox so you can work up from that. Click on the "Edit Source" option for the particular section you're working on, and then you can copy and paste it, preserving the links, subheadings, etc.
I'd suggest including a rationale/explanation for why you chose to include the people that you did. Are they founding theorists? Particularly productive or famous scientists? etc.
Provide life years in your blurb for each person (e.g., 1834-1899) to give readers a quick idea of when each scientist was working.
Also, how will the list of evolutionary ecologists be arranged? Chronologically? Or...?
Are there any other broad sections that you can think to add to the article (beyond "Evolutionary Ecologists" and "Evolutionary models"?
I'd recommend getting your links formatted and inserted the Wikipedia sooner rather than later. It's a little tricky to figure out. And once you have them in, Wikipedia-style, you can move them around, and the system will manage them automatically. It makes things easier and neater.

...

Ngilbert202 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler's peer review

The content of the article looks fine for the most part, mostly need some restructuring. Here are some suggestions that might help strengthen the article.

The Evolutionary ecologists that you listed might be better placed in a specific order, such as the time their work came out, alphabetical, etc.
The word "famous" in the section about Eric Planka might come off as more positive towards Planka than the neutrality that Wikipedia wants. Maybe change it to "most well known" or some other variation.
It would probably help to go ahead and enter the citations into the article instead of just writing it out.
Add a little more info about the ecologists. Would help better convey why they are important enough to be in the article.

Looks good though, very interesting. Jtmitchell2 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]