User talk:Emily.Connors/sandbox

Feed on article choice (MF): I would choose the article that has the most peer-reviewed articles examining the topic. This will give you more content to add to the article of choice. Also, consider what has been written and what needs to be added to the article, and its organization. Although all the articles you've chosen were start class some are more organized than others. The shark threat display needs more work than cat behaviour. But it's up to you on what you want to work on.

Yes, I didn't realize how few peer reviewed articles there were for the shark display article. I selected it because I figured it needed the most work out of the options I had. I'm not sure if I should look for a new article or stay with the shark display topic?Emily.Connors (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

134.153.73.85 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Review on first draft (MF): Great effort on organizing the shark display article. Well done. Below are some comments for your consideration. 1- Your lead can be more concise. Structure it so you're not giving away too much information in your opening paragraph. For example: a) the list of triggers leading to aggression displays is too long. Saying aggression display is confusing especially when the header is agonistic display. Is aggression display different from agonistic display or is it synonymous? If it is synonymous then consider using just the one term (i.e. agonistic display) to avoid confusion. b) "For the potential benefit of not having to participate in combat, the shark jeopardizes its chance to escape by engaging with the threat and exhibiting the display" out of place in the lead. For a lead, you can mention that there is adaptive significance to the behaviour. Then expand on that in the "evolutionary relevance" heading.

2- Content: a) "Currently, there is a concerning lack of reliable information on this subject, and most of what exists presently is over-simplified or limited to anecdotal accounts of observed behaviour" No need to comment on the lack of information as it suggests some bias. e.g. what exists presently is over-simplified to you or to many others? State what you have found regarding the shark agonistic displays i.e. how do sharks display? what triggers their display? what is the adaptive value of displaying? b) You overly state that shark display has been observed in 23 species. No need to mention it numerous times. c) "Characteristics of Agonistic Display" header under shark behaviour can flow better right after your paragraph defining agonistic display. That way define what you mean by agonistic display and then you give the characteristic displays observed in sharks.

I would suggest restructuring agonistic displays and shark behaviour. The reader knows that they are reading about shark behaviour since the article is about their display. So, perhaps another title? The table comparing the postural and kinetic elements is well done> it is clear and to-the-point. The second table is a bit long and hard to follow. You mentioned that a lot of what we know about these displays come from the grey reef shark. How about dedicating a section for this species as a case study and do a literature review on that behaviour in that particular species.Then make note that there are other shark species exhibiting similar display but explain how they are different from the representative species. Afterwards, you would have a case study for the pseudodisplay induced by sharksuckers to illustrate the difference between the actual display and the pseudodisplay.

3-Sources and references: It is apparent that most of your information is retrieved from Aidan Martin's review (2007). Instead of constantly citing the review, why not see the actual empirical data from the studies that the review cites. This will bolster your references and provide the reader to easily track the information on a selected species or topic.