User talk:Murphyjul/sandbox

AWD Peer Review
What does the article (or section) do well?

Interesting topic! It's concise and well organized. The word choice is varied and engaging too. Explanations of type-facing specifics is also well done.

What changes would you suggest overall?

Try explaining a bit more what certain computer science topics are such as Bezier curves. Alternatively, you could link a wiki article to that topic like you did with Postscript.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

Adding a small section at the top or bottom explaining the impact typeface designing and Just van Rossum's work on the internal typeface community as well as how people interact with online text. However, that may become too broad and objective, so be sure to keep it short if adding haha.

'''Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? '''

The structuring for one. Each of the section flow clearly into each other, citing specific dates to emphasize the time structuring. Also, the tone is objective and clear but uses complex words and structures, keeping it formal. Gianna03 (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
What does the article (or section) do well?

I really like how you organized the article. The different sections are really informative.

What changes would you suggest overall?

I would just suggest adding more info into LettError. And obviously finishing the sections at the bottom.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

Maybe add examples or pictures to the overall article. Ahmedr8 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)