User talk:Ngilbert202/sandbox

Reilly's Peer Review
Hey, Neil! I looked over your article, and it looks great so far. There isn't much to peer edit-it looks like you have things pretty much under control. A few things I would suggest: 1. Maybe delve a little deeper into the history of the word. I've always found the development/use of words interesting, and it seems as though there may be an interesting story. How did they decide on the term 'outgroup'? Does it have roots in any other languages? 2. Your graphic is great. I would also consider adding a more "real-life" graphic including organisms from an actual phylogenetic tree. It may make things easier to visualize. Other than these things, your article looks great! I look forward to seeing it. Reillymcarr (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lily's peer review
-Figure is a really great addition -The new information is good and well-written -Nice job getting the "encyclopedic" tone -The history section is good, could it potentially be expanded to also provide some history of the concept of outgroups in addition to the history of the term? -The two characteristics of an outgroup could maybe go at the beginning of the section so that the characteristics are presented then explained instead of the other way around. Just a suggestion, it works well in either place though. -Overall, this looks really good so far Lmelmore (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mariah's peer review
Hi Neil, this is a very well written and structured article. I am a sucker for things that are organized so the layout of your paper is intriguing to read. I enjoy how simple you made it to understand the meaning of outgroups especially for someone who did not know the term. I would really like to know more about the history of outgroups and how the word originated. Other than this the paper is so well written. I would love tips on how to structure my article like yours.Mariahfaithh (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)