User talk:AEWieneke/sandbox

Peer Review
Hey Arika! Awesome article! You crushed it. Below are my critiques and comments:

1. The Lead Section- great, concise first sentence to establish a foundation for the article. I love how you explained a brief example. I think you could add one more phrase to the very end...something along the lines of "as each organ type or organ system has its own unique mechanism as explained below." 2. Your article is very well organized and detailed with an abundance of examples. Perfect!! 3. The article strikes a neutral tone and is very balanced. 4. Your sources are spot on. I would avoid any literature reviews or systematic reviews unless you plan to add a section about ongoing research. The fact that your sources are from well established universities, physiology textbooks, and reputable organizations makes your article neutral with a solid foundation. 5. I think you're section on Individual Mechanisms would be supplemented well with a generic figure or two. 6. The Examples section made the article very comprehensive. All of that text can be a little overwhelming for someone without a medical background, but your links to other articles brought it all together.

Wow, really really great article on a complex topic. You made a complicated physiology topic into a very straight-forward, well-organized, concise Wikipedia page!

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewalbridge (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings!

Peer review will be communicated through your Talk page. If needed, you may review the Peer Review training module and Top Tips for Peer Reviewers.

Thank you! Ann

Annpharris (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)