User talk:Coadm001/sandbox

Peer Review by Brooke Northey (user: BN1998)
I believe that this user did a good job of keeping a neutral perspective when talking about infiltration. All of the sections in "Factors that affect infiltration" are around equal length, and I believe that this represents each sections level of importance within the subject, so this was organized really well. The sources used are all of reliable origin, all being academic journals. I would suggest maybe adding 2 or 3 more sources to make this a higher quality article with an abundance of evidence. I would also suggest the addition of media, like diagrams or photos so that the reader can further understand the subject, I think this is the most important change that I noticed. I think this user did a really good job of using simplistic and easy-to-understand language to convey the subject, thats something I could apply to my own article.

Peer Review by Cheryl Acosta De La Fuente
Overall, this was very organized with subheadings allowing the reader to follow. All the factors are well explained that connects back to the topic infiltration. This was written with a neutral tone, showing no bias towards any of the topics. I would suggest maybe adding more citations within the paragraphs, to show where this information is used from. All the sources that were used are reliable journals which is great.

Good job!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acostadc (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Kayla's Peer Review
Hi, I really enjoyed reading your draft. You used persuasive yet unbiased word choices that created a strong piece of written work. I think your draft is very strong as it focuses on just the factors affecting infiltration but it is also broad as you added many factors. I think you really demonstrated your understanding of the subject great. Some ares of improvement when polishing your work could be adding some links to other wicki pages so the reader can further investigate and understand the topic in a deeper sense. For examples, some words that can be linked to another article if the reader doesnt know much about them are the following that I found when reading your draft; wildfires, infiltration or infiltration rates and runoff. Overall great work, you are on a good track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHorton98 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi, your draft is really well written and very informative. I like your use of various external links, which allow the reader to get a better understanding of the topic and further explore it. Something I noticed in the introduction paragraph is that in the third sentence, “infiltration” is capitalized while two sentences later it is not. I’m not sure if that was a typo or if it should be capitalized. Something else that might help make your article more informative is adding visual aids. This will help the reader to have a better understanding of the content. Overall, I think you did a very good job with your draft and I hope my suggestions were helpful to you! Mitchell11998 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)