Talk:Angela McGowan

Macey's peer review
Good job on content so far! You have a lot of specific information on your archeologist, so I would suggest making checking to flow of your sentences to make sure that they would make sense to someone who is just learning about archaeology. One specific change I would made would be under the "Kerry Lodge Convict Site"- maybe start the section out with something other than "the project". Make it clear what project you are talking about, where it is, what was discovered, and how your archaeologist contributed to this project. It looks like you have some rich content so far, very good job! Mschallr (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review- Taylor Daymont-Hunt
The sections are well detailed so far, you have an expansive list of references as well which is great. I would make sure to cover the outcomes and conclusions drawn by the researchers from the excavations you detail, but be careful not to write with an opinion tone. Good job staying neutral so far. It's clear you're not finished but it's off to a good start! Taylorcdhunt (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)