User talk:Mcrobertson/sandbox

Mallory Brown: peer review

A lead section that is easy to understand

I feel the lead is more satisfying after reading the entire article, though it does a good job of summarizing important points when it is examined alone. However, the topic of domestication changing society is mentioned in the lead and then not discussed in the article. The lead is nicely balanced and not at all redundant I feel, but it could possibly mention the size change in dogs leading to domestication since it is mentioned a couple of times later in the article (though this is not a major point and it is fine without it).

A clear structure

The structure is clear and I can't think of a way to better present it. Good job.

Balanced coverage

Each section is approximately the same length which I think is fair as all portions seem to be equally important and no sections appear to be unnecessary or off-topic. I like the inclusion of the five criteria that lead to domestication, but is it possible that anyone else has a different perspective on what criteria lead to domestication? If so, these viewpoints should be added. The article does do a good job of remaining neutral and not trying to convince the reader of anything.

Neutral content

I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author while reading the article. The closest thing to being biased is the statement about the man who was buried with the dog, but even that feels relevant to show our relationship to dogs. I did not notice any words or phrases that were not neutral. The article does reference what archaeologists say without naming an explicit archaeologist, but I think this is fine. The info on dogs does seem to all be neutral or good, so if there is anything bad that you know of it couldn't hurt to throw that in, but if not I think it is okay.

Reliable sources Most statements do seem to be contributed to a reliable source, and no source is overused--the sources are diverse. There are a few statements in the lead that are unattributed though (domestication and society). I can't check the actual sources, but the info here due to the way they are currently cited but it would be hard to misrepresent I feel.

Nate Wasylk: Peer Review

A lead section that is easy to understand 1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The lead section introduces the topic well and gives a lot of clarifying information and history about the dog fossils that have been the baseline for the research being performed.

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The most important information

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? 4. Is anything missing? 5. Is anything redundant?

A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? 7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? 9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? 10. Is anything off-topic? 11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? 12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? 13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? 15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." 16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." 17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

Reliable sources 18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? 19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. 20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natewasylk (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)