User talk:ARH125

Welcome!
Hello, ARH125, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi ARH125, This is Brayden Tinney (bet9 on Wikipedia) and I'll be peer reviewing your article. I'm going to try to complete the peer review by Thursday morning. Is there anything specific that you want me to look at or help with? Bet9 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi ARH125, This is Brayden and here is your peer review for this week:

The topic of your article, Paleopathology, is really interesting, and I think there's a lot you can do with this topic in a Wikipedia article. I'm excited to see where you are going to take it and what you will add! So far, I see that you have added one citation to the article and that you have started a plan in your Sandbox for what else to add and edit.

Your article has over 30 sources, which is a great reference list and bibliography. However, I noticed that many of the references were recent, but the information in the article does not seem as up to date as it could be. I think it would help to go through the references and see if there is any new information you can add to your article. I also think you could add more images to your article.

Additionally, I noticed that the lead mentions non-avian dinosaurs and Cenozoic mammals but does not expand on these topics later in the article. I think it would be beneficial to further expand on how these topics are related to Paleopathology or take them out entirely.

When reviewing the tone and balance of your article, this sentence stuck out to me: "There is however, more archaeological evidence for the disease in the Americas than there is for the disease in Europe at the time of Columbus's expeditions." I feel as though this claim could present bias. In order to maintain neutrality, you could explain the evidence that backs it up, so it will no longer appear as biased.

Overall, the content is all well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read, and I do not notice any grammatical errors. This is a great start and I'm excited to see what you add! Bet9 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)