User talk:Klong5/sandbox

Peer Review: Matt
1.) None of the sources proposed by the edit section seem to be biased toward either side. The article is fairly neutral and the editor maintains that neutrality throughout the edits.

2.) The citations are formatted correctly and are included in the sentences but do not appear later in the references section. Other than that the edits seem great and well developed.

3.)The edits proposed are definitely substantial, personally, I know nothing of Operation Paperclip but when reading through the edits and the original article they provide more clarity and detail that are needed.

4.) The language is very clear and concise, they provide adequate detail while maintaining neutrality and clarity.

Anthony's Peer Review
1) None of the sources are biased, as they are all informational and not opinionated. The user's information that they have written does not include any personal pronouns.

2) Every different point made by the user has a citation, and multiple citations are used when necessary.

3) Each different point made by the user is large chunk of information that contributes to the information that is already present in the article as is.

4) The user's edits are written in a way that is easy for anyone to understand. There are no overly sophisticated words. There is a minor spelling error: "...his reputation feel under scrutiny".

Response to Peer Review
I would like to start out by thanking you two for the feedback. Most of it was positive and didn't leave me with much in terms of editing, but the sections that do criticize are a tremendous help. For instance, I didn't notice the typo until after reading through the review, and I will make sure to go back and fix it. With regards to the citations, I made sure to edit it so there is a separate section that has the complete list. It was there before, but now it is much more noticeable. Based on these reviews, it seems that the edits are ready to added into the article. Before this happen though, I am going to try to change the first edit so that it fits more in with the Wikipedia style. Right now it is in a list form and I did this purposely so anyone who edits the article is capable of doing it smoothly. The point of that section is to focus on the individuals themselves. By putting down their name and then a short description about them right next to it, it does go against the Wikipedia norm, but I feel that it puts a spotlight on those people and puts a strong emphasis on some of their greatest accomplishments. Lastly, based on these reviews, I feel that my edits are sufficient enough to add into the article after a little bit of proofreading.