User talk:Megan Reyna/new naturalhistorymuseum

I think that your new contributions are substantial and provide important information. The style is readable and neutral without being dry. I would only recommend possibly reorganizing the article to prevent confusion, as when your writings are interspersed with the existing paragraphs, it is sometimes confusing. Additionally, make sure you're not listing the same source multiple times in your "references" section, and find additional sources to round out the section without repetition. Overall, however, the article is robust and well-put together. --JoFraDe (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a great contribution that provides good information regarding the history of development of natural history museum. In particular, I didn't know that museum of natural history wasn't open to the public until much later. The writing itself is quite clear and easy to follow in most cases. Some word choices might be better, e.g., "Now, the natural history museum was (change to become) a new space for public interaction with the natural world." But a simple read through should correct those. Otherwise, I guess the transition to general history to specific history regarding dual arrangement can seem a little confusing for first-time readers. Also, "at the same time" is a little confusing. At what time do you mean in particular? All in all, this is a good contribution. Fakeroute (talk) 5:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)