User talk:Clara.roeder/sandbox

FOR MIDTERM: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara.roeder (talk • contribs) 16:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Provided below are some edits. I hope they help!

PARAGRAPH 1:
 * The title “history of scientific understanding” feels a tad lengthy for a wikipedia article. Perhaps find a more concise way of saying the same thing?
 * I don’t know if the thesis-esque introduction sentence is necessary for a wikipedia article.
 * “peak popularity of a theological concept called the Great Chain of Being, “ this phrase feels a little strained. Maybe rephrase the entire sentence because there seems to be a repetition of the creationist concept reaching a heyday and that heyday being a peak of the single concept you then mention.
 * Really great linking to other articles
 * “an opponent of extinction.[2][4] famously denying” period should be a comma

PARAGRAPH 2:
 * “that appeared unlike any living species.” How so? Or rather how can you make this statement more specific?
 * “community embarked on a fascinating voyage of creative rationalization,” some of the modifiers like “fascinating” seem to be based on opinion.
 * “Robert Hooke presented the impression of “ based on sentence structure later on, consider change “the impression” to “an impression”
 * “and quite unlike” the word “quite” feels unnecessary
 * I really like the chronological layout approach you take to the topic
 * You include a variety of viewpoints

PARAGRAPH 3:
 * “was a gifted geologist” like earlier, this statement feels biased.

OVERALL

Really nice article, it was informative and interesting. I thought your use of citations and links to related articles was great, and the viewpoints you emphasized were informative and comprehensive. In terms of improving the article, there are only a few places where you should be aware of potential biases, making statements more specific, and phrasing. Cmedvid (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

- Thank you so much for your valuable edits. I really appreciate them! --limulus120 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara.roeder (talk • contribs)

Evan Mayer peer review for final
Evanmayer1 (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work breaking down a subject with a lot of historical twists and turns, while presenting many different points of view.
 * Not much to say here. It's a solid article, written in plain English, with plenty of citations, lots of inline wikipedia links, and appears impartial.
 * If this new section in your sandbox will appear contiguously on the parent page together with the section above, you might want to consider breaking it down into a couple of subsections to make it a little more digestible. Maybe gradualism, uniformitarianism, etc?
 * "uniformitarianism. [11]" had a tiny space after the period. I just fixed it for you.
 * Looks ready for mainspace, regardless!