User talk:Aghelms/sandbox

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?
Yes; I believe that you have provided a thorough and detailed set-up for the rest of the article and have conveyed the major points in a concise blurb.
2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
The lead is an accurate reflection of the main portions of the article and sets the reader up well.
3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others?
No, approached the contents of the article fairly. Again, I was impressed with how thorough the contents were.
4. Is anything missing?
It does not appear that any information is missing – very thorough!
5. Is anything redundant?
I generally feel you did a good job of avoiding redundancy.

A clear structure
6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order?
I appreciated the flow of starting with the differences between homology and homoplasy, examples, clarification between homoplasy and evolutionary contingency, and real world application.
7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
No; I think you arranged it in the most appropriate way.

Balanced coverage
8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?
Yes; I generally feel you approached each section appropriately, although I would like to see more real-world application included.
9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary?
No; everything appears to be appropriate and relevant to the article.
10. Is anything off-topic?
No; everything appears to be appropriate and relevant to the article.
11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?
I feel that this article appears well balanced and well researched.
12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
This article appears to cover the breadth and depth of the topic well in easily understood portions.
13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
This article functions as a presentation of facts about homoplasy and describes current research well; I feel that it did not try to convince me one way or another.

Neutral content
14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
No; the article was well-informed and came from a neutral tone that describes real world examples and application well.
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."
In “Real world examples of homoplasy,” describing previous attempts to determine phylogenetic position of the Bonnetina tarantula as ‘poor’ does not feel neutral; substituting with ‘unsuccessful’ may be less slanted.
16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
No such claims were noticed in the article.
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.
I feel that you kept the article neutral.

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?
Statements in the article are cited to an appropriate academic journal or text.
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.
No; source use seems well-balanced.
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!
In the ‘Distinguishing homology from homoplasy” section, it may be beneficial to add a citation to “Using parsimony analysis … in the traits used for analysis.” for clarification. Within the descriptions of previous results, citing studies when they initially appear or with additional sources would be beneficial.
Akward483 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lindsay Pittman 1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, I think you did a great job of explaining homoplasy in terms that both a random person and a person with a scientific background can understand. You gave good examples of how homoplasy is relevant. 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? I think you could add a few short sentences at the end of your lead-in that explain the sections of your articles and what else it is that you are going to talk about. You have a lot of information in your lead in, so if I were you I would add information about what hompoplasy is and add an examples and make that your lead-in, and add the rest of your information to a section. This way, if a person is just trying to get a basic idea of what homoplasy is, they can ready the first paragraph and get the big picture without having to skim over all the details. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No, I think you did a good job and presented a lot of information evenly. 4. Is anything missing? A few sentences on the sections of the article. 5. Is anything redundant? I don't think I see any redundancy, just shorten your lead in and then add the rest of your information to sections so that you won't repeat yourself!

A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Yes, you did a good job with your section and organized them from most general to more specific. 7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? No, I really like the way this article is presented; specific to narrow, it is easy to follow so that you can read all the way to the end if you want a lot of information or stop after the lead-in if you are just looking for a general idea.

Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Your application section is short, maybe try to add the information somewhere else by combining it. 9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? The application section is a unnecessary unless you can find more information to add to it! 10. Is anything off-topic? No, you stayed on topic. 11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Yes, I think you stayed neutral and have many helpful perspectives. 12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I do not think so. 13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the information that is presented is neutral and factual.

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, the only things listed are factual and do not offer opinions. 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." No. 16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No. 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. I think you presented the information in a way that is factual and I do not see you trying to have an opinion about homoplasy and trying to influence the reader.

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? Your sources seem to all be reliable sources of literature, and you used plenty of them. 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. You do have a few sentences that multiple sources, maybe split these sentences into two sentences to give more perspective about the topic instead of grouping the sentences together. 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! I looks like all of your information is properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaypittman (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Peer Reviews

Thanks for the review, Audrey. I will look for more info on application or maybe combine it with the real world exmaple section, and good call on the wording in the Bonnetina section. Looking back it does seem a bit biased. I'll take your suggestions on the "distinguishing homology from homoplasy" section into account as well. I neglected that section a bit because I didn't write it, but I'll fix it in the final draft.

Lindsay, you are probably right about the lead. Reading through other articles, the leads are often short and sweet, so I could briefly mention parallelism, convergence, and reversal and then wait until a separate section to describe them in depth. Also I'll consider splitting up some of the sentences that I linked multiple sources to, but most of the times I remember doing that, it was because both sources supported that sentence in similar ways. I wouldn't want to be redundant by saying basically the same thing twice just to give each source its own sentence. Thank you for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghelms (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)