User talk:Gtsourdinis/sandbox

Peer review for Hot Dark Matter.

This article is very interesting and seems to be off to a good start. It appears it is still being filled out, but it is certainly promising. Below are some sections that could use some changes, with suggested changes in parentheses. Dark matter is a form matter that neither emits nor absorbs light. (this sentence is missing an of) forcing researchers to innovate ways that indirectly detect it through dark matter's effects on gravitational fluctuations (phrasing is a bit awkward, perhaps replace with forcing researchers to innovate methods of indirectly detecting dark matter through its effects on gravitational fluctuations) There exists no concensus (should be consensus) some even suggesting a middle-ground of "warm" dark matter (WDM) (this could use a citation)

Theorists claim that there exist two classes of dark matter: 1) those that "congregate around individual members of a cluster of visible galaxies" and 2) those that encompass "the clusters as a whole." (this could use a citation) However, data from the cosmic microwave background radiation, as measured by the COBE satellite, is highly uniform, and such high-velocity HDM particles cannot form clumps as small as galaxies beginning from such a smooth initial state, highlighting a discrepancy in what dark matter theory and the actual data are saying. (bit of a runon sentence) Also, the last half of the Role in Galaxy Formation, seems to be making a lot of claims that are not sourced or cited. -Jon GreenbergerJonGreenberger (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi George, This was a very informative piece and I have few valuable edits to offer. I ran your work through a spell and grammar check to confirm that there are no major cosmetic mistakes. My feedback to you, therefore, will primarily be content based. I have two specific ideas. First I would like to suggest that you divide your contribution into two: "Socio-Political Utility" and "Patronage". I think there is sufficient content to allow you to make this division, and each of these sub-divisions would be fleshed out with a lot of detail. Second, you end your contribution by saying that "In this way, astrology was more than a science, but also a political tool". This is pretty cool, but I think the claim needs some more backing given all the content we have discussed. If you can create a sub-section under "Socio-Political Utility" labeled "Medical Astrology as a Political Tool", the reader will gain more clarity and evidence concerning your claim, increasing the coherence of your contribution. That is all.

Sumer Vaid

Hi George!

Overall, your Wikipedia article is pretty great! It’s a really interesting topic, and I like it!

I do think there is some irrelevant information though – for example, in your second sentence, “Essentially, a patronage […],” breaks the flow of reading on and takes away the emphasis from the main topic.

Additionally, there are some grammatical changes I would make to help with the flow of reading. For example, “He published a book called De genitura hominiset de signis conceptionis, et de impedimentis circa conceptionem, linking cosmological phenomena with "virtues of the [fetus's] soul,"” may be better worded as ‘He published [book name] […],’ and additionally I would consider linking to the book if it has a page or also writing it out in English, to add clarity.

I’m also not sure how I feel about the part with da Vinci where you state, “In saying this, da Vinci had officially challenged the framework of academic disciplines that had been in place for centuries […],” as it sounds almost argumentative and trying to push a specific interpretation. I think in rewording this, it could sound less biased/more objective.

If you have any questions about my comments, feel free to reach out!

Stormy Ruiz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormyruiz (talk • contribs) 00:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)