User talk:Rlstatton/sandbox

Annie's Peer Review
I really like the changes that you made to the genetic section in the article you chose. The article initially had a very broad section on genetics and it felt like it was missing something. You added a lot of good information and I feel like it is almost 100% complete. My suggestion would be to see if you can find a few more related sources and get even deeper into the genetics part of it. Additionally, you may want to consider adding more links to some of the words so people who don't know a lot about the subject can access more information. Other than those two criticisms, the section you improved sounds pretty good and is well organized. 50.248.83.41 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Annie McMillen

Emma's Peer Review
Good work! I think you added great content to the article. One thing to be aware of is the readability of your contribution. Make sure that you link and/or define terms that non-scientists would not understand such as germ-line mutations, loss-of-function, etc. Your sources seems strong and are a good mix of well established scientific reviews and journal articles. I think one more area of improvement would me creating more flow in your contribution. For example the your statement about ASD being a polygenic could come much earlier. Eisherfinski (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Myranda's Peer Review
I think that you wrote the section of the article very well and it is easy for me to understand. I also think that people without a background in science would not be able to understand exactly what this article is saying. Defining words such as de novo, micro-biome, and other less common terms would help this article a lot. Overall, the sources are strong, the writing is clear with some words defined, and I think you did a good job. Mymurphy2 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex's peer review
I really liked the genetics section you rewrote in your sandbox because it is easy to understand and presents plenty of data/stats without being biased whatsoever. I was a little hesitant when I saw that you chose "controversies in autism" because it seems like it would be a very biased article an go against everything we learned in the modules but your section is very neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngal97 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)