User talk:Kwhitlow2413/sandbox

Kwhitlow2413's peer review
I like your article. On the social support article, it is kind of hard to tell what has been added. Try underlining what you have added.Jhud9526 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review I will find a way to show my work apart from the articles original content. Kwhitlow2413 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nicole's Peer Review for Sleep
Hi Kwhitlow2413,

After looking at your article I could tell what you added. I think it would have been even better to add the whole article and underline what you added or deleted to make sure it flows with the article. I think it is very important adding the information about ADHD. I never knew sleep problems could be changed due to ADHD. In your article I think you did a great job making sure that it was not bias. Your sections are outlined in a very organized way and easy to understand. Where you talked about sleep and how siestas improve the quality of life, I think you should keep this in the section with rem and non rem sleep. By having this topic by itself then it would be out of place. Under mental health in the first paragraph when talking about social support aids this could lead to being bias so I would be careful here. Overall great job on the edits! You did a great job of making sure you did not talk about unnamed people. You did a great job making sure everything that you added was related to something and did not make me guess. You highlighted what was important and that showed the true topic of the article. Good job. Nicole6794 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for your review. Do you mean while editing in the sandbox to just underline what I have added so others can see? The siestas are under the nap portion of the sleep article were you meaning for me to place it in another section? I struggle to try to make sure I talk neutrally, thank you for pointing that out! Kwhitlow2413 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Esteban's peer review
Katie,

You did an excellent job with your article contributions to the topic concerning "Sleep." It was well written, for the most part, and contained pertinent information. The sections were well organized, and you kept it concise and to the point. However, I do have a few notes that I would like to point out.

You appear to reference some of your references within your article. For example, "As reported by Cutona, Russell, and Rose..." and "Ogawa et al (2008) found..." I do not believe that it is necessary to introduce in-text citations like that. For the most part, I do not typically see Wikipedians inserting references like that. You could instead provide the citations at the end of the sentence utilizing the footnotes function. Additionally, there are some minor grammar errors. The first sentence of the "support groups" section appears to run a little long, as you use similar word choice for a number of the terms within the sentence. It could help to reduce wordiness, and provide more concise points to your readers. Nevertheless, I found your article to be well written and organized. You do not write with a biased perspective, nor do you use any terminology that suggests otherwise. You did a great job, and a very interesting topic! Nice edits!Earnold97 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review, in regards to changing the references would you simply state the reference and then add a footnote? Although there are some references within the articles that do start like that I will look at them. I will also look at the wordiness within the sections and try to reduce them. Kwhitlow2413 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi, I enjoyed reading your article. However, I wasn’t really able to distinguish between what you had written and the author of the original article. On the bright side, just by reading your article I learned so much. You had very good structure and flow throughout the entire summary. You made valuable points and had several sources to support those points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguellee15 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review, another peer review mentioned underlining my additions to show the difference between the articles original content and my own do you think that is a good idea at least for in the sandbox? Kwhitlow2413 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)