User talk:Codysheng000617/newsandbox

Miguel's peer review
First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

-It’s organized in a easy, understandable sequence; -It focuses on the most important parts of Katheryn’s history; -The amount of information and its specifics;

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Try to vary the structure of the sentences. In the first paragraph, for example, all sentences started with a “she+verb” structure. Maybe try to make some transitions between sentences more smooth, for example, the two last ones on the lead seem a bit disconnected.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Vary the structure of the sentences and ease the transitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msilva38 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nic's Peer Review
You have a good length, easy to read lead section of your article. You provide the most important details about Katheryn Lawson in the lead section which is what the whole point of this section is. I feel like you could cut down on some words. I feel like her education could be left out of the lead section because is is not as important as her accomplishments. Overall, your lead section is very good and I would only perform a few minor changes.

The structure of your article is good chronologically. Early life and education makes sense to go before the career section. However, I suggest you combine the personal life and early life sections to make one life section. This would put everything about her life into one section, making it easier to follow along with her story. I would also eliminate any unnecessary words or phrases to make the article less wordy. Overall, the structure is fairly clear, however you should make some minor adjustments. I learned that I should probably move the education section to before the career section on my article.

Your article is definitely not biased and has a nice balance of facts. Most of your article content is just straight facts about Kathryn Lawson and her life. You covered each section with in depth analysis as well.

Everything in your article is cited properly to the sources in your reference section. It seems like you have only cited two of your sources, however. I would suggest that you should cite all of the sources that are in your reference section. The sources in this section are credible, but most are not cited. Overall, just fix this and your reference section/sources are good.

Nzacharis (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Nic Zacharis