User talk:Amberpero/sandbox

The body of this article is thorough and well-written, but I wonder if it has an appropriate title. Since you are not necessarily writing about the profession of paper conservation itself, something like "Threats to Historic Paper Collections" may be better suited.

I also think that the bulleted list for hazards followed by their definitions can be streamlined a little. You could either move the definitions up into the bulleted list or if you're feeling brave try and make the list like a little menu with links so you could click to different sections.

Definitely keep the link to the Getty paper conservator site- it was a great addition that leads readers to an authoritative source! KBish87 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Like Kayla said, this article is well-written. However, I do not feel that its an article about "Paper Conservators", but more about "Paper Conservation", which is a great topic. The first paragraph, with the definition of a paper conservator does not match the rest of the article, and probably is not needed if you change the article to be exclusively about paper conservation. The link to the video about the Getty should be moved to the bottom, in a "resources" or "other information" section.

Again, like Kayla mentioned, I don't think you need the bullet points then the descriptions. Removing the bulleted list and just having the descriptions seems to flow better. Also, since you only used to examples for pests, you might be able to form that into a sentence, instead of a list. But, overall, the article has great bones and needs only a few tweaks. KKuhn12 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)