User talk:Mekaisheffie10/sandbox

Peer Review
Positive: I liked that your opening line clearly explained what it means to be an LGBT person within science

Constructive: I think that you need to expand the topic and give more background information i.e. when/who was the first openly LGBT individual within science or history of LGBT in science.

Most Important: More information needs to be added to the article because it is not very informative besides the original explanation and some challenges that LGBT individuals within science are faced with. Perhaps you can explore some retention programs that have worked etc. or go more into depth about challenges that LGBT individuals within science are face with.

VicLis18

Eli's Peer Review
1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

I think you've cited your sources well and it seems that you've done some digging around!

2. What changes would you suggest the author(s) apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

You might change your opening sentence to frame the experiences of LGBT people as opposed to saying who they are. You can start your article by saying "LGBT+ people in science refers to the climate of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans+, people within the scientific community. It is can be characterized by personal instances of ... "

3. What's the most important thing the author(s) could do to improve the article?

I think your article should use neutral and objective language, and you've done a good job so far. Its important that the article remains unbiased. You might consider describing the treatment of LGBT people by paraphrasing stats or their personal experiences.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I'm sure there will be, because I'm doing a LGBT related topic as well!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elicordova (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello, I originally posted this peer review on your User Talk page on Monday or Tuesday of this week, per the Wikipedia guidelines. My apologies for the repetition.

Thus far, the article has a good lead. I was impressed by the quality sources. Some suggestions would be to be more inclusive by utilizing the term "LGBTQIA". Perhaps, rephrase the statement, "There are traditions and expectations that LGBT people should not study or have careers in science." Add some examples of traditions and expectations that are referred to in the statement and/or weave the source directly into the sentence to avoid the it reading like a judgement statement. Give some examples of who "some activists", "some academic commentators", and "Various activist organizations" are. Finally, is there any statistical evidence that could support the points of the article more specifically? Thank you for writing this much needed article!JamieLynexander (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)