User talk:AICOI/sandbox

I found that the draft was extremely informative. However, it may be useful to add an image that illustrates the structure of the male reproductive system, as well as the respiratory system if possible. It was a little confusing to see one sex's reproductive system but not the other. Additionally, it may be helpful to link pages that are related to your topic as it might be helpful for readers if they do not have good background knowledge in biology or anatomy.Niemolej (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall the Week 6 draft is well organized. I could not tell though if you plan to add other sections such as listed in Week 5 or wanted to focus more on just reproduction and respiration. Additionally it was unclear if everyone contributed to the reproduction section and then just one member to the respiratory section and how work was being split up so it was difficult to tell if work was being split up evenly. The sources for each section listed in Week 5 look good though more than one source per section would add strength and the color atlas of anatomy may be too recent to use images from unless they are in Wikimedia Commons. You may also want to edit the first sentence as Leydig cells were referred to twice and should instead state: The adult male reproductive system forms the same as most mammals with the seminiferous tubular compartment containing the Sertoli cells and an adluminal compartment that contains the Leydig cells[1]. Stealth should also be changed to sheath in the sentence below, but overall this sentence is essentially quoted from the source and should be rephrased: In an adult male rabbit, the sheath of the penis is cylinder-like and can be extruded as early as 2 months of age[2]. Overall the draft was good and the sections that were written about had a good amount of information and were easy to follow. Kurtames (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Kurtames

Your group draft is very informative and I like the addition of the picture. The first sentence is high in jargon, try linking out some of those "5 point" words so the general public can better understand it.Armystud77 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well organized page! Your gameplan was very clear and the sources were well formatted. I was not able to tell who was giving what contributions on the group part, so that might be something to try and clear up. The personal draft was nice and detailed in content, but very jargony, and sounds more like a high level textbook than a wikipedia page. A later view of the rabbit's head with a saggital cut would be super helpful in seeing what you are describing. The group section was also pretty dense and had a couple of typos on the third line. The visual for the female was helpful, but one for the male would also be nice. I agree that links for high level words would be helpful, but if they are not necessary words, then I would stick with the vernacular. RameyEA (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Luke's Peer Review:

Overall, the group portion of this draft looks good. The structure is clear and well-presented, and each member seems to be contributing fairly equally, though I couldn't discern what content came from which member aside from the personal draft, so I think clearing that up would be beneficial. I think the picture presented is a smart addition. I made a few grammatical corrections in order to smooth over the flow or just fix any obvious errors. This section is pretty long, so I would recommend searching for more sources. I would suggest that you have 4-5 sources in total. I'd also keep an eye out for possible connections to other pages throughout your draft. The content is neutral, with no apparent bias. The sources cited are reliable. Make sure you're careful with your paraphrasing.

The personal draft regarding the rabbit respiratory system is also well done. However, I think more sources are necessary. I see no obvious bias, and the current source is good, though.

I can see a need for these subsections in the biology section of the rabbit page. Looking at your game plan, I think you guys might have too much to add if you plan on contributing all of the suggested sections, but I do think both of these prepared sections are a good start. Lunord22 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Lunord22

Alex's Peer Review:

As other Wikipedians have said before me, this page is very well organized and easy to follow through the group's thought process. The ideas that your group presents seem very critical to the rabbit reproduction and rabbit respiratory on the Rabbit page. On the other hand, it may be important to label who did what work in the group draft just so it can make it easier to make a comment to that person directly instead of the whole group. As suggested before, I think that the first sentence in your group draft section seems a little out of place with the wording. Instead of saying "Leydig cells" twice in this sentence, you could state: The adult male reproductive system forms the same as most mammals with the seminiferous tubular compartment and the adluminal compartment since they both contain Leydig cells [1]. Other spelling errors that I saw was "sheath" instead of "stealth". Make sure that you guys are careful on misspelling words from sources. The sources present in the group draft are credible, but I may suggest finding other sources than using the same two of them for the whole section. This content is neutral and is not written with any bias. I like the idea of adding a figure, but your group should try dissecting one and have it fully labeled. Overall, the group draft is very well written and this information fits directly to the Rabbit page.

Additionally, the personal draft section seemed very well written, but might be too "textbook material" than a Wikipedia page. This isn't a bad thing, but it may be difficult for others that aren't use to the terminology like dorsal, cranial, or caudal. You should try and think of adding a labeled picture of what terms you are trying to describe. Other than that, the sources appear credible, but I may suggest adding a couple more just to provide more evidence for your section. This piece was written with no bias and the information was important to the content. AR12Fan (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Mena's Review

The draft was very well done! I do think that there are some words that should be defined if they don’t have a link via Wikipedia because this is writing for the public not just scientists. Having a picture if the female anatomy would be helpful for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansnow (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Edit by GoldenRetriever21

In the Rabbit Reproduction section of the Group Draft, I think you may have made a spelling error, as Kurtames pointed out.

• Original: "In an adult male rabbit, the stealth of the penis is cylinder-like..."

• Proposed Edit: "In an adult male rabbit, the sheath of the penis is cylinder-like"

It might be a good idea to specify where in the Rabbit article you propose to add your drafted sections, I would suggest after the Digestion section.

You could also add some images from your dissection of the respiratory system.

Are you also planning on adding this to the Lagomorpha page?

--GoldenRetriever21 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)