User talk:Marshallbaxter15/sandbox/new sandbox

Owen's Peer Review
- Your article was very well written, documented, and formatted. Here are some notes:

- Your lead is clear, concise, and effectively establishes the main points of the article, not prioritizing or underrepresenting any key information.

- Your structure is clear. There is a large portion of the article dedicated to Family and Education, though, making it appear slightly more important than career information. You might want to consider lengthening the Career section or shortening the length of your Family and Education section.

- Your sources are well documented and reliable, however, look into source 1 (, as its copyright states "This manuscript is being made available for research purposes only. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the IEEE History Center. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of IEEE History Center."

- You may want to explore the possibility of citing the publications in order to link them to her Wikipedia page.

Owenpendley (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hanson's Peer Review
For the lead the structure, I would suggest to put publication section under career and then do personal life, because publications are more relevant to her career. The article is very well written, and the wordings are neutral. There is not irrelevant content. I notice that the article relies on resource No.1 heavily, but it is her interview, which can't establish notability. The other two resources are neutral and independent. The distribution of the article's focus is pretty even, although I do suggest to talk about her career and details of her publications more.

Hansonztk (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)