User:SophiaGibbons/Emotion in animals/K.white31 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? User:SophiaGibbons
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SophiaGibbons/Emotion in animals/Bibliography
Lead
[edit]The lead was pre-existing the article that Sophia was adding to. She updated the lead adding more information based on the manipulation and study of emotion in animals. The lead is not overly detailed, however I think there is potential to structure it so that it lays out the article more clearly. This can be done by mentioning the major sections that will be elaborated on later in the article. I think that the definition of emotion in the second section of Sophia's draft would be better suited as the first sentence of the lead to provide a clear definition of what the behaviour is and what the article will be talking about.
Content
[edit]The content added in the draft will compliment what is already existing in the main article. I think there is room to talk about the study mentioned in the addition to the lead, so this could be elaborated on a new or within another heading. Further, the portion that Sophia will be adding to the vocalization section of the article is interesting and mentions Darwin's research in relation to chimps and other apes laughing. I think it would be beneficial to talk more about this! She has also added an entirely new subheading regarding neurological basis of emotion in animals.
Tone and Balance
[edit]The content added has a completely neutral tone, there is no evident bias or overrepresentation of one point of view over another. There is no attempted persuasion.
Sources and References
[edit]The article Sophia is adding to is fairly extensive and has many sources contained within it. Her draft has addition to various sections but does not currently hold the entirety of each section in her sandbox. It will be important to merge the citations in her added information with what is already existing. For example her draft is missing citations 2-8 of the original article, so what is contained her second source will actually be the ninth source of the existing one. Both links/references included in the draft are reliable sources from scientific journals and both links are functioning. It may be useful to find some additional sources.
Organization
[edit]The content in the student's sandbox is well-written and does not seem to possess many grammatical or spelling errors. As previously mentioned, the draft does not contain the article as a whole because the existing article is quite extensive. It is fairly clear from the draft however, where the added information will fit within the article. It has many major points and the information added by Sophia will contribute to numerous subsections.
Images and Media
[edit]The student has not currently added any of her own media to the draft. There are multiple images int he existing article, so it may be that it was difficult to find additional media that would compliment the information contained within or aid in the readers understanding of the topic.
Overall impressions
[edit]I believe that the content added by the student has in fact improved the overall quality of the article. The existing article was rated intermediate with room for improvement, so it was fairly well developed to begin with- not a stub or start class article. But, the students additions will add value and completeness to the page.