User talk:Owenpendley/newsandbox

Hanson's Peer Review
The stating structure is fine, but I think it will be clearer if the 'Life and Career' section is divided in to sub categories, for example, early education, teaching career, military career, etc.. And also, this might be trivia, but I think the information of where she's born can be changed to the first section of general introduction. Reference No.1 and No.2 is a neutral and informative website, and it is independent, so it helps to establish notability. But Reference No.2 is from NASA, is it going to impact this resource's notability? However, even if No.2 can not establish notability, two resources should be enough for notability. The wording of this passage is neutral, and all information is relevant. The coverage of her life is even.

Hansonztk (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Marshall's Peer Review #2
Very interesting article! You have a strong lead section that really captures the point of your article. The only recommendation that I have for improving the lead section would be to play around with the aesthetics. Just look up a popular wikipedia article and see what techniques they use to make their articles easy to read.

In terms of structure, my only recommendation would be to divide the content into more subcategories. I think it tends to be easier to read small paragraphs of specific information rather than one large body of information relating to many things.

You did a good job of writing from a neutral standpoint.

Your sources look reliable. I would look at adding more citations within your writing. If you have more in-text citations, your writing on surface seem more legit... but more importantly, it makes it easier for others to fact-check your info.

Keep up the good work!

Marshallbaxter15 (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)