User talk:Haveagooddavis/Ernst Chladni

Peer Review by bradley goldsmith
Very good contribution: it adds useful information and helps the reader understand Chladni's contributions in their own context. Two small things:
 * maybe in this sentence--"He hypothesized that these meteorites were chunks of material that had either never been consolidated in the formation of larger masses or were debris from the formation and destruction of planets"--you can add a wiki link to a page on how planets form.
 * In the next paragraph, this sentence has a typo: "Still, his writings sparked a curiosity that eventually led to more researchers supporting his theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Goldsmith (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by jmalysa
Your contribution is easy to read/understand and well cited. Some small changes that I suggest are:
 * add an embedded link to the meteoritics wiki page when the word first appears in your edit (I didn't exactly know the definition the first time I read your article, so I was slightly confused)
 * in the 3rd paragraph under the section "Contributions to Meteoritics", I would remove the 'even' in the first sentence in "...including even Lichtenburg". It seemed rather opinionated on first read.

Overall your contribution is looking great! Jmalysa (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Sejohnson1
One editorial comment: in your third paragraph of Contributions to Meteoritics, you have "the sample beared a strong resemblance..." and I think you instead mean "bore a strong resemblance." I think you did an especially good job of honoring Chladni's contributions to Meteoritics while also noting that his findings were controversial and not everyone immediately accepted his work. I also appreciated the many links to other wikis included in your contribution--great job! Sejohnson1 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)