User talk:Alexisbgoodson/sandbox

Peer Review
Lead: The lead section is very brief and covers the most important topics of the article, but it only mentions her Nobel Prize research. She conducted other research as well that's mentioned in the article that could also be included in the lead section (like her work with the drug Cronassal and the consequences of her involvement with a pharmaceutical company). The lead could also mention more about her personal life because it tends to focus only on her professional life. The structure of the article is very good and the order of each piece makes sense. The article is very unbiased and presents facts in a neutral way. Although some praise of the subject is included, it is not from the editor of the article, but it is a quote from someone who knew the subject of the article. In this way the article's neutrality is good. The article is full of citations, one after almost every sentence. Pretty much all of the information is accounted for in some way. This article is well structured and well written. The only thing I would suggest is adding a little bit more information to the lead section. Otherwise, it looks good. Bparcel (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (Yvonne Barr)
Lead Section: The lead section is small as the article is small, but it could still include a little bit more information about the subject. The article mainly focuses on the subject's role in discovery of the Epstein-Barr virus, so instead of just stating that she was a virologist it might be helpful to state that she was important to this discovery in the lead of the article. Although the article is short, the sections present in the article are presented in logical order. However, the sentence beginning with "Further information about her scientific career is unavailable.." is in the section about her personal life. This information would be better included in the section on her scientific career. The same sentence concludes with the statement "...it is known how valuable her contributions were to the discovery of the EBV." This is not a neutral statement and should be revised to be more neutral, such as "She is most known for her contribution to the discovery of the EBV." In addition, the sections in the article aren't divided by actual sub titles. Wikipedia has a button to insert these subtitles so that they are more obviously separated. This article has a citation for almost every sentence, so all of the information is accounted for. Nice job! Bparcel (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)