User talk:Davist090/sandbox

Peer Review

Grammar check -	No mistakes

Can anything else be added? -	The article has a lot of good content. You could go into more detail about some of her accomplishments, like her work in the tuna research and conservation center that she established, if you want to add more. You could also add a picture.

Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive? -	No

Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic? -	Content is relevant to the article to her life and contributions to the field of biochemistry

Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much? -	Good amount of detail

Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail -	Good reading level for the general audience

Does the organization make sense? i.e. order of sections/content; content within the sections -	Yes

Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat self-explanatory? -	Yes

Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused? -	Everything is cited, enough references, none overused

Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced? -	Yes, unbiased and properly balanced

Can the article be interpreted as medical advice? -	No

Sarickson (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Deap Bhandal
Grammar check: '''Spelling or grammar mistakes on Tuesday 26, 2019: '''Spelling: In awards section Benchly is spelled Benchley (unless you are referencing a different award) '''Grammar: In the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Biography and Career section, “lead” should be changed to “led.” '''In the second to last sentence of the second paragraph in the Biography and Career section, “in the the Census” should be changed to “in the Census.” Overall there were no spelling or grammar mistakes that distract the reader from the article content.

Can anything else be added? As I was reading the article for the first time, I did wonder if there could be more biographical information (birthdate, hometown, and current city of residence) but I completely understand if these cannot be attained.

Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive? There were no inconsistencies at the time I read the draft and I found none of the content repetitive.

Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic? '''The content is relevant to the article and is what I would want to know if I searched Barbara Block. The article draft lists the major aspects of a person, one would find in a Wikipedia page.'''

Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much? '''I do feel that the author could explain more on her early years and what Barbara Block is working on now, but at the same time this information may not be easily accessible in the time frame of this class. No content is over explained.'''

Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail? The article is easy to read and did not contain excessive technical detail.

Does the organization make sense (i.e. order of sections/content; content within the sections)? '''All content presented is under the correct labeled section and I do feel the sections are in the correct order. If the author does include more biographical information, the first information section could be expanded into the various time periods in her life (early years, college/graduate years, and present). '''

Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat self-explanatory? '''The title of each section paints a good idea of its content so each section is somewhat self-explanatory, and they build on each other in a clear way. '''

Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused? '''The information presented is cited and there are a good amount references listed. Perhaps the author could assign citations to individual facts in the lead section instead of having three references at the end.'''

Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced? There is no opinion based information so I could not find any bias in the draft and no unbalanced work.

Can the article be interpreted as medical advice? No medical advice is stated.

Overall, the article draft could use some slight edits, but is looks pretty solid. D.Bhandal (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)