User talk:MHAngel/sandbox

Hi Marie, I really enjoyed reading your thorough Wikipedia entry about Book Conservators. Both of our entries could go hand-in-hand! I like the headings which divide the subtopics up into smaller, more digestible sections for the reader, examples of the different items that they conserve, and the concise definition of the term in the beginning. As a suggestion, I would have liked to see more about the conservation of organic elements defined because Book Conservators work with vellum or paper, both of which are made from organic elements. Possibly even the influence of the natural surroundings on books might have been informative in the entry. What do you think? Overall, I felt this article was very informative. Good job! AHGuitar24 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Carie

Review: Book Conservator
Marie,

Your encyclopedic article about book conservators defines well its role in the conservation and restoration of books, including its duties as a books conservator. In your description segment, a small description of each type of book would have been a great addition to your article. In the same way you could have used hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles or other websites on key words such as: book, manuscripts, religious texts, etc, including other words related to conservation and restoration. I believe that a segment is the books conservator education and training would have been great to your article.

In terms how to article is divided/segmented I would have added headers like "Types of Books" and "Types of Treatments" instead using the header "Description". The reference list can also be improved.

Overall great article.

(Orlan2arroyo (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC))