User talk:Jmwood48/sandbox

The article is well organized. It is missing citations, though, so definitely be sure to add those in! The sections on vitreous humor analysis and cerebrospinal fluid analysis were very thorough. They were also comprehendible to someone who knows nothing about chemistry or the body (aka me), so great job on that! The introduction to toxicological analysis is strong. I think that it wouldn’t hurt to add a bit more about the different types of analyses in this section. I think the post-mortem diagnosis section could have a little more information on what post-mortem diagnosis actually is exactly. The tone is neutral throughout and there’s a lot of detailed content. Overall great job, hope this helps! :) Jeouellette (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

For starters, yes I am in agreement with the above review that the organization is well done. I think that this is especially important for someone to be able to go through and read particular topics of interest. However, lack of citations seems to be the largest problem in this article. The writing is pretty much there, easy to understand with a lot of information. Just make sure this information can be linked to another source directly. If you are writing about a topic you know quite a bit about, I would recommend finding the sources you think you may have learned it from. Additionally it might be helpful to include images. This is a requirement on the rubric, and although I wouldn't want any gruesome images, perhaps images of the tools used in analysis would be helpful. Fish.ty (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)