User talk:Ragesoss/Nature (journal)

Peer Review by Lauren: I think you introduce your topic very well, giving a good overview that explains what exactly Nature is. It is interesting how many scientific journals were created, and I like how you cite opinions on why Nature might have been successful over other failed journals, but do you have any information on why the others failed? If there are any noteworthy accomplishments or steps towards international expansion made by different editors, you might want to include those to expand the editors section. Also, you could explain who the intended audience of Nature is, and exactly what kinds of articles were published in the journal- were they articles by scientists on their research and discoveries, were they reviews of other publications, etc- I realize that there are other Wikipedia articles on 'peer review' and 'scientific journal,' but you could expand just a little on how the process of submitting/accepting papers works. I like how you show how much Nature has expanded and its continued growth. At some point though, you could mention if there are currently any other similar journals.

Peer Review by Maya: Good job breaking up your topic into various subjects. You did a good job tracing the origins of Nature,and included important information such as that it was not the first magazine of its kind, but was rather an extension of the many scientific magazines of that era. You should consider including a subject on Norman Lockyer, the creator, to give a better background of why he, in particular, is given credit for it, and what it was about his personal experience that inspired him to create the journal. Good discussion of why it has been so successful for so long, and it is also good that you included "the future of nature" section so the readers will know that that it is always expanding and adapting to the current times.

peer review by Tyler: I thought that the introduction was well done but it may have been slightly verbose. I think the first sentence is a great summarization and the last paragraph is good but I would either split up the middle paragraph into two or three smaller paragraphs or delete some of the more unnecessary pieces of information. There is no information addition needed just possible deletion. I also think that you put a little too much information and effort into the section describing the journals that have proceeded nature. I think that it is useful to give insight into what journals existed before nature but I think you went a little too in depth. I would again narrow this section down to the bare essentials. I thought the rest of the article was well done. I would maybe split up the creation section into smaller sections to make it a little easier to read. The one thing that I would also do is add on a section that links nature to the course and possibly what the impact of Nature is on modern society. I don't think this is a citable section but you could give you own insight into the impact that Nature has today.