User talk:Preservationluvr/sandbox

This is a great start to an article to which there is limited information or public knowledge on. I think the article would read more coherently if it were divided into more sections - perhaps one on the history of the treenail,and the transition from treenail to the nails we know today. You started to touch on early origins of the treenail and it would be great to find sources which expand upon this. Also the information on the use of treenails in ancient shipbuilding is extremely interesting and it would be helpful if that were in its own section. Some of the language used could have better explanation - technical terms such as 'plug' or 'wedge' perhaps need a better explanation or a visual accompaniment. I think a next step if you are looking for more sources or expanded information could be to find notable architecture which employed treenails and explain how the treenail was used in the structure of those. LatrobeKnows (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Instructor comments
These are some great edits to expand this article, and your peer reviewer has made some thoughtful comments as well. I would add:
 * Make sure to cite your sources with inline references before moving your edits to Wikipedia mainspace.
 * Do you have a reference for "when the treenail was a different wood variety then the planking it usually caused rot"?
 * We typically refer to wood species rather than "variety."
 * I'm curious as to why this is related to species differences; differences in wood grain direction would seem to play a greater role.
 * Consider using citation templates to format your references; some of them seem incomplete.
 * Consider using Template:Convert to provide automatic SI conversions of U.S. customary measurements.

Elizabeth Linden Rahway (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Jo Schmollinger Peer Review- The Pennsylvania Declaration

Tone: I thought that overall you did a really good job of keeping an objective voice that is consistent with the tone for most Wikipedia articles. The only place that became maybe a little too narrative was the background section, but I don't think it's a big issue.

Content: This is a comprehensive article about the Pennsylvania Declaration, I think you've included everything you need to.

Structure: The structure reflects that of other wikipedia articles I have read, I think you have the correct amount of sections and they all make sense.

Citiations: Honestly I'm pretty sure you know a lot more about wikipedia citations than I do. JoSchmollinger (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)