User talk:Loganbays/sandbox

Logan's Peer Review: I like the direction that you are headed with the article. Something that I immediately thought of when reading over what you have so far is the need for some context. As it currently stands, you move from your header directly into the synthesis of these viruses. I think that it would be beneficial to the overall flow of your article to add in a history section. This section could contain information that helps reader understand how it is that we reached the point where we can synthesize these viruses and when this field truly had its spark. I like how you have the construction and applications of the viruses as your two subheadings. I think that they are both necessities for the topic. Another component that I think would be cool to add would be the delivery of these viruses to the individual which they are going to treat. This would probably fall well into your gene therapy discussion that I see you've begun to write. Also in your header, you briefly mention the application of these virus to reviving organisms. I think that any reader who comes across this will be really intrigued and will probably want to hear more about it. All of your current citations seem appropriate for usage, the information isn't biased at all, and your header seems solid. i look forward to reading the finished product of this article.

Steve

Dmmatthews96's Peer Review
Your first section could use a bit more information. The "Constructing De novo Synthetic Viruses" section should have a citation at the end of the paragraph. Also, I agree with the previous comment, a history section would make for a great addition. Overall, nice job. Dmmatthews96 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Dani

Cccinco Peer Review
Hey Logan,

The content of your page is on point, I think the only thing that needs some work before submission is the usage of the wiki tools to format it where it looks "wiki"ey, including a contents box which links to the location of things within your page, headers which can separate the page more neatly and the use of the reference tool ( to the the superscripted numbers and a hyperlink to the reference at the bottom of the page). Your source selection is appropriate and they all look credible. With a few tweaks in structure this will be a rock solid page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cccinco (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

RE: Review
All, thank you for your suggestions. I will incorporate these improvements in my article.

Loganbays (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)