User talk:Lydiajohnson/sandbox

Bogdan's peer review
Overview is the first thing we read. It seems to be good and gives the most important information about the architect. Briefly creates an idea about who he was and his achievements. I do feel satisfied. Although, the part about "love of his life" is not really necessary. Talking about structure, I would divide "Life" by several subdivisions like "early years", "family life", "education", "achievements in architecture". Also, I would add more information to every subdivision because as a reader I want to know more. Seems to me, there is a lot can be added. Nothing is really off-topic. I think the article does not draw conclusion and does not trying to convince me in anything. I have not found any words that would be unnatural. None of claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people were found by me. The article does not really focus neither on positive or negative information. It just reveals some facts from life of an architect. Unfortunately, I didn't find any resources. Neither journals nor textbooks. I am afraid that it could be presented inaccurately.

Dillon Inglee's Review
Hello. After reading, I definitely have a better connection to what Malachowski's work had to do with architecture. What I liked about the article was the attention to the detail and flow of the information concerning his life and the events that occurred. There is a lot of good information in there about his life and his childhood, but I would've liked to see more about how this connects to his architectural work. In the end of the "Life" heading, there is mention of his works and when they were completed. I think that is a great organizational spot to put them, but I also feel as though maybe there could be a heading inserted there after his "Life" section (which could also be broken down into separate headings as well) detailing the individual buildings or at least naming them separately as "Architectural Works/Contributions". In addition, there were no in-text citations, which is problematic of course. If it is due to the coding in Wikipedia, that is understandable and took me a WHILE to get a hold on. There are sites listed in the footer for additional information, but I was confused as to whether those were meant to be the references or again, sites for further study. I think in text citations and possibly a separate heading would clarify that and present the information in a more organized way. -Dillon Inglee 12/10/18 6:01pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillon.inglee (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)