User talk:Erikawicher98/sandbox

Article Peer Reviewing: 1)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?
 * Your article was really well organized and it fit perfectly with the article that you were adding onto. What really impressed me was the level of organization and scientific terms you used with reliable sources to back up your data and information. Also, I like the images that you placed in the article as well.

2)What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?


 * There are really no critiques that I have. Your footnotes are placed correctly and your article is really well written I was really impressed. I would say to maybe add more information to the “Persistent Truncus Arteriosus” section and the “Ebstein's Anomaly” section. (More information is probably not needed, but I think it’s up to you.)

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


 * Your article shows no bias and is well sourced. Like I said, maybe go back and add to those sections if you can and feel necessary. Other than that, I doubt that your article will be taken down for any issues.

4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!


 * I definitely felt like the balance of this article was much more organized and oriented than my own article. I will go back to my article and add to one or two more section to balance mine out.

I was really impressed by your article! Great Job!

GhanatiosMilad (talk)Milad Ghanatios - it looks great. i think it's ready to go. just make sure you citations are complete at the bottom. Ctysick (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)