Talk:Gallaudet Eleven

The article flows really well. I think the diction/language you used is well-used for a Wikipedia article and its audience. I wouldn't really change anything. Something you could do to improve your contribution is to add a relevant photo. I enjoyed how informative it was, so maybe I could make my own article a bit more Wikipedia-like.

Peer Review
What does the article (or section) do well?

I really like how "lean" all the information is. It's easy to digest and pretty accessible. Also, I think the formatting of information, based on the sub-headings, will play out well.

What changes would you suggest overall?

Continue working on it, good information so far. No changes really.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

Make sure your sources are credible. I think an article like yours could certainly be used in some report about human experiments or something. So, do your best to give the best info, I believe in you.

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!

Your methods of delivering concise info are inspiring! I'll be taking that with me.

-Cesar

Coriolis
The section about the Coriolis Acceleration Platform repeats from the cited source that the room was "designed by French civil engineer Gaspart [sic] Coriolis".

Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis was the 19th-century French engineer who mathematically formulated the Coriolis effect of rotating reference frames. In light of this, the chance that the Coriolis Acceleration Platform was designed by a French engineer named Gaspart Coriolis is exceedingly slim, so I have removed the claim.

The cited source in turn cites a 1964 Pensacola newspaper article regarding this. RHA Rao (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)