User talk:Rd1305/sandbox

lots of work and it shows--RJBazell (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Andres' Peer Comments
Hey Rebecca great job editing the article there's a lot of really thorough and pertinent information. You definitely expanded quite a lot which is awesome. The article sounds neutral for the most part and many points are discussed. Some things that I did notice are:
 * The last sentence of your section about Clinical Trial 052 seems to be a synthesis of ideas and not a factual statement, which obviously it is but I would just change the wording of the whole "The true significance is..."
 * A lot of your article doesn't seem to be sourced properly just make sure the information is directly being linked back to where it came from
 * You say "although ideally," which seems a little wordy, throughout the article try to stay more concise in general I know I tend to do the same thing as you.
 * Your section about Drug Resistance is your best one. Very thorough, informative, and well worded
 * Just a formatting thing, all of your headings seem to be one subcategory too small Like the treatment as prevention is the article head and then your 3rd level headings should be 2nd and so on
 * Make sure the sources get put in properly
 * The article reads really well overall, I'd just make sure the lead section includes some more of the points you talk about in the article a little more.

Thanks for coming to my tedtalk :)

Yunji's Peer Review
The headings are really good and clear. However, it seems like some parts are incomplete, so I would work on those parts. You maintain an overall neutral tone which is good. I feel like this topic is a bit difficult to come up with things, so you are doing a great job with whatever you have to work with. I would also cite a bit more extensively throughout. Especially the trial 052 part. Any time there are numbers involved, I suggest you cite just to be safe. Yjjong (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)