User talk:Msilva38/sandbox

Nic's Peer Review
Your Lead section is easy to understand, however I suggest leaving only the most important terms in the list. I feel like you should just include what she was famous for in the lead section. You can then describe her other less important occupations later on in the article.

The structure of your article is not entirely clear. I suggest moving adult years and education to after the childhood section. Then I suggest adding in a career section in which you can combine her works, controversy, and what she accomplished. Then, I suggest ending the article off with a legacy section to show how she impacted the world after her death.

I feel like her childhood section is weighted a little bit too much. I suggest you cut some of this information down and add more to sections that are more important. You could create a "Life and Career" section that combines aspects of her career and Life. This would be more efficient and would create a more balanced article. I also feel like her father is described a little too much in your article. You should cut down on descriptions of her father and focus more on Alice Elizabeth Anderson.

Your article definitely has a neutral viewpoint. You do not draw any conclusions and you focus on neutral information throughout the article.

You definitely need to add sources to your article. Right now, the article has no sources and nothing is cited.

Nzacharis (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Nic Zacharis

Cody's Peer Review
You can bold her name in the start. You can delete the heading of biography and make each section their own heading. Add citation The section of controversy can be put in the end. Put education before adult year Need to have a section on her career and her significant works “Alongside, in her free hours, she would take couples for picnics at the Dandenong Ranges.” Add more details about this business. This sentence sounds weird. Add more info on her education. In the lead paragraph, you can add her significant inventions and works. The language sounds objective. In the controversy section, it's inevitable to state "some historians". If you can find their name, it would be more reliable. But you didn't pick a side. So it's OK. No interpretation is made. Only facts. This is good. Codysheng000617 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)