User talk:Heacock.e/sandbox

Katherine Grierson Peer Edit
What does the article (or section) do well? What changes would you suggest overall? What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!

1. The middle section of the author’s contribution does a good job of describing the types of cancer that Mohs surgery can be used for. The original article did not seem to address non-melanoma skin cancer much, so the author's contribution is important. 2. The first section of the authors contribution (Frederic Mohs) does not fit with the article. There is already another article for Frederic Mohs that includes most of this information. It is linked in the original article. The last section is also a bit confusing. The information seems to cover different topics but is all listed under “Mohs Technique”. The first paragraph covers the increase in the occurrence of the surgery, which would better fit under a different section. The original article does touch on this topic under “Society and Culture”. The next two paragraphs discuss the technique. It would be helpful to either better explain the technique or include links to these techniques if other pages exist (ex: curette technique). Thus, the distinction between what each section covers is somewhat confusing. 3. I think the most important thing would be to refer back to the original article and improve on what is there. Some of what the author included does not relate to this specific article, such as the background on Frederic Mohs. The author can use the original article to better integrate the writing they have done into what already exists. Also, there are a few grammatical/spelling errors to be fixed. 4. I think it is important for this author to determine whether all the information included is necessary which made me think to re-read my article to see if everything included is important. Grierson.k (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Beiyu (Pam) Lin Peer Edit
What does the article (or section) do well? What changes would you suggest overall? What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!

1. I think that the first section of the article is a nice brief summary of Frederic Mohs' life and his important contributions. I also think that the middle section is a nice addition to the original article and gives more insight on a non-melanoma skin cancer.

2. I think that Emily could add some hyperlinks to the middle section in specific. With terms like "basal cell carcinoma", it would be helpful for a reader to be able to reference that somewhere else on Wikipedia. I also think that the third paragraph would be better organized if Emily started out with what exactly the technique is. I don't believe that the statistical information about where/how the technique is used to quite pertinent, but if she wants to include it, I would suggest putting it at the end.

3. I think that Emily could do a little bit of reorganization, especially on the third paragraph. Hyperlinks could also be added for terms that a lay person would be unfamiliar with. Other than that, I think that the draft adds new insight on the Mohs Technique!

4. I realized that I could be a little bit more comprehensive with my article. Emily has a variety of information and it almost seems as if she has hit every aspect of the technique. While it is harder to do that with scientific research, since its always expanding rapidly, I could be more thorough in the information that I have included.