User talk:Joellegavazziapril/sandbox

Joellegavazziapril's peer review
It is a good topic, good job. All the sources are updated and easy to understand and follow with. As I see now, more detailed about the biomass product in Canada can be cited.Zhongnan Mao (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Joellegavazziapril's peer review
Overall I found your drafted contribution to have a lot of valuable information with some pretty good sources. I found your content to be quite neutral and with even amounts of information from section to section. I would recommend trying to find a few more sources to back up the information as well as review your reference section as your second and fourth references don’t seem to have a citation. I also found some sections hard to read and understand because of the wording and have some suggestions on how that could be improved. In the template:Statement summary the first sentence starts with “Other implication in which…” and should be switched to “Other implications in which…” as there are multiple things listed. In the Template:Copied article + work added the first sentence should be changed to something like “Magnetic separation is a process in which magnets are used to separate different components within a mixture by attracting magnetically susceptible materials.” The third sentence should be rewritten because it doesn’t make sense to say it is useful for not all, but few minerals. It would make more sense to say “This technique is only useful for separating a few minerals such as…”.

The History section is well written but in the third last sentence it says “The first pair of balls was…” and that should be switched to “The first pair of balls were…”. Other than that the History section is well written.

In you section “Magnetic Cell Separation” I found some of the wording to be too casual. For example the first sentence you say that magnetic cell separation is “on the rise”. I would suggest changing that to “becoming more popular”, “becoming increasingly common” or something more formally worded. I would also recommend rewording the second sentence so you don’t say “took a turn”. In the sentence “Zborowski uncovered crucial revelations that were then used, and are still used today, in the human understanding of cell biology.” I would recommend changing it to “Zborowski uncovered crucial revelations that are still used today for the human understanding of cell biology.” I think this change is necessary because when I was reading it I had to re-read that sentence to understand what it was saying because it was poorly worded.

For the section “Other Applications” I found some sentences hard to understand because of the wording. I would recommend changing the first sentence to “Magnetic Separation can also be used in electromagnetic cranes that separate magnetic material from unwanted substances.” For the second sentence I would recommend rewording it to explain what a “process industry” is and what the “product streams” are. I would recommend changing the third sentence to “This is very important in both the food and pharmaceutical industries.” In the fourth sentence you say “Other possible applications in which magnetic separation could potentially be used”. It isn’t necessary to say “possible” applications and could “potentially” be used and I would recommend removing the word possible. I would also consider moving the last sentence to the beginning of the paragraph so you don’t go from talking about current applications to potential applications and then back to current applications. Joey Stephenson 98 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joelle,

May I suggest introducing the idea of ore beneficiation (and link to the already existing wiki article).

--Matt.trenkler (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)