User talk:Camjohnson/sandbox

Peer Edit:

The additions here do several things very well. In the section that was added, the lead sentence is used effectively. It is clear, succinct, and does a good job previewing what the section is about. The explanation of the evolutionary advantages of facial recognition is very well done. The articles cited are from reputable, peer-reviewed journals and are cited in the appropriate place. This article also does a good job of remaining neutral and objective, and acknowledging the uncertainty of the scientists’ theories. It is hard for me to tell which parts were changed in the portion that was edited from the original article. However, I can tell that the revision helped to make the article more politically correct, and the explanation of the analysis of Shepherd’s study’s scale. A grammatical error I found was that there should not be a space after Rhodes and before the comma. I also think the organization of the article could be improved because the ending is a bit abrupt. I think this could be fixed by moving the second sentence to the end, being a nice way to wrap up the section.