User talk:RabiaF/sandbox

Peer Review Feedback

Hi RabiaF,

You have some great ideas for your article. Based on the outline, I think your article will follow a logical path and really engage readers. I like how you are going to include some information from other researchers about other possible theories or explanation of this model. This will ensure that your article has a neural tone. All in all, I think you have a great starting point and good luck with the creation of your article.

Mndo18 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

All of this demonstrates a really clear grasp on the material and concept of risk sensitive foraging models, definitely like the use of one particular study to use as a foothold to explain risk sensitive foraging behaviours. Would definitely be beneficial, if it wasn't in your plan already, to perhaps give a handful of other examples of how this type of behaviour is expressed in different animals, as I guess I'm curious if an operational definition of a risk sensitive foraging behaviour looks fairly similar across species, or instead varies quite a bit from organism to organism? Maybe highlight, if possible, a set of criteria used to determine what exactly constitutes risk sensitive foraging behaviour from one organism to the next! Other than that, I think you should be wary of adding in a "conclusion" section. I believe it was mentioned in one part of the training manuals it's kind of considered redundant information as a wikipage is meant to be more presentation of essential facts, rather than making particular conclusions about a set of findings that need further extrapolations, but feel free to get that verified. Strong outline! Rehewitt (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Peer Review

Hello Reviewers,

Thank you for your suggestions. I went back and checked the trainings and you are correct I should not have a conclusion section. I plan on removing the conclusion portion of my page. I will be using one main study to explain the findings. I agree that it would be beneficial to incorporate a operational definition to the article. So far most of the research papers I have been able to find on this topic have looked at behaviour in bird species, where is seems to be relatively similar. However, too further your suggestion, I think I may attempt to find some research papers on other animals. If I can't locate relevant material in other animals, then I might mention that as a limitation to this hypothesis and how future research would benefit by studying different animals. RabiaF (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]