User talk:Ltroftgruben/sandbox

Review by Group (Eve Clark Group)
1. While peer reviewing your article, your group does a great job not only being expansive in each of your articles, but as well as citing where it is appropriate. What is really impressive is how you managed to provide enough detail of each article in a relatively small amount of wording and in a coherent way, given that this is going to be added to the wikipedia page. 2. As far as changes go, it would be to use the bolding and hyperlinking of the sources and key words so that when it translates into the article, it is ready to be submitted. This step is the next step in this assignment, so your article looks like it is well on track. Lastly, I would recommend slightly expanding the details on the middle two sections of the article. 3. The most important thing the author of this paper can do is to just ensure that the citing on the final portion of this assignment is correct. With plagiarism being a big issue in both the academic field as well as on wikipedia, proper citing will allow for reliable information to be posted without any consequences. 4. The biggest things I took away from your article that we will apply to ours are the format you have for the rough draft and the extent of explaining your studies. That format will be easily transferable to our final draft, where all we essentially need to do is be aware of our citations and hyperlinks. The detail you provided as well gives us a baseline on how each of our section needs to look and sound for the final draft. Great work!!

Herre120 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)