User talk:Ranyamatari26/Elisa Camahort/Millwr226 Peer Review

Peer Review by Emily Miller (Millwr226)(group 1)

1) The required contents of the proposal are there and organized which is great. The summary of the person at the top has important parts and the summaries of the sources listed below make sense and tell me about them.

2) However I have a few suggestions. The largest issue is pretty small. Some of the sources had vague summaries, that won't really help in the future because you'd definitely need to go back into the article. There are also links instead of APA formatted sources, which isn't a huge issue, but it will take more time in the future since it isn't already done. Lastly, the only thing I would watch for is run on sentences. The wiki page will obviously be more detailed and so on, but there are a couple of run-on sentences in the person summary at the top that need to be split up and better organized. The biggest thing to focus on is the sources. I think the editing of the content will be easier and done later. The biggest thing will be having better summaries and important info pulled out of the sources. One person could maybe make the APA format and everyone else could review their sources and make sure that others in the group can take out what they need without having to read the whole thing to understand.

I definitely saw some of those issues with my own group in making sure our sources made sense and weren't run on!

I think right now the biggest issue for everyone is transferring the information into something that makes sense and is organized. There are lot of ideas and less coherency and "put-together-ness". We all have lots of sources and ideas but now they need to be organized and not repetitive. Overall what you have is organized and understandable. 2601:243:580:4530:C04B:E474:C907:E91E (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)