User talk:Lynseymae/New Sandbox

-The layout of your wiki page is appealing to the eye and organized in a such a way that makes it easy to read and understand. -The main things I notice with sentence structure that you could improve on is locating in the first and second sections where you start two consequtive sentances with the word "the." Restructuring one of the sentences will improve the overall flow of the reading. For example, you could change your last sentence in the first section to something along the lines of: Today, the program still exists, but is much smaller than before. -You should also add some kind of punctuation or use parenthesis in your second section's second sentence. Pherphaps parenthesis around "an artist and NASA employee" or even using a dash will help the structure of the sentence. -Make sure to double check your first source's link in the bibliography, because the link is to the ccclibrary log in rather than the page you got your information from. -Adding more information, especially to the type of art used section will be very beneficial. As will adding pictures to the page. However, I know you're not entirely done with your draft. So keep up the good work. :)

Sierrasummers (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft feedback
Hi, Lynsey!

You've made strong additions to this so far--two significant new sections and one small but important addition to the lead (that also leaves me curious for more information). As you continue expanding this, I wonder if you have found any information about how big the program was at its largest (maybe how many artists per year if that's something you can even find) and when that heyday of the program was, and then some information about how big it is now (hey, maybe money is the thing to look for--what was its peak funding year vs. what is its more recent funding levels...I think this is public information). Can you find information about what made the difference, why the decline? What else are you finding that you're still planning to add?

As you move into revision of what is already here, one thing that you will want to do is a careful round of proofreading. There are some spelling and punctuation bumps throughout that it would be good clean up before it gets moved to the main article page. I don't think this is a concern yet, but as you continue adding material, you will want to revisit the lead and make sure it's still fully introducing the article that follows it.

I look forward to seeing what else you add to this! Nicoleccc (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft Peer Review
Hi there, Lynseymae!

This is a fantastic start. It is organized well, and is relatively easy to read. The aesthetics and organizational aspect of the article make it a easy to navigate and read. You expand nicely on the existing article, adding more sections and information relevant to the topic. I appreciate your use of citations within the text; it makes the information easy to find when using the source links provided.

While I am sure that you are aware, there appears to be a large amount of information missing on this broad topic. More insight could be given on the individual missions listed.

Another thing that I would consider changing is the amount of sentences that start with the word "the." More punctuation could also be added to enhance the reading experience; at present, it feels somewhat robotic and lifeless. I would like to see the addition of punctuation and diversity of word choice and sentence transitions.

Nice draft! I look forward to reading the final product.Felixdevries717 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)