User talk:Rmills66/sandbox

Peer Review
Overall, great work!

Your first paragraph explaining ERT is a bit long. I think the second paragraph could be shortened or moved to the Medical Uses section.

Make sure when you move information into the actual article, you keep your sourcing and headings consistent. It is a little wonky in the talk page and not consistent with the actual article. Also be sure to source everything you write. Most of your additions to the existing article are sourced, but there are a few sentences in your work that are not sourced so be sure to supply that if it is challenged, you have evidence to back you up.

Good use of the table! A short and clear heading for this table could be beneficial to your audience.

Best, Nor&#39;bro 123 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review ENGW3307
Hi,

Great work so far!

Overall, if you see any places where the language could be simplified (less scientific, more general), that would help with readability for a general audience.

My suggestions for the introduction are to add Wikipedia links to the diseases that are mentioned, and if possible, to find a picture or an Infobox (like the Biochemistry Infobox on the Enzymes article page).

For the Medical Uses section, the table you have made is excellent! Very informative and organized. If it’s possible to condense the size of the columns a bit, that would make it even more readable.

It looks like you have a plan for completing the last two sections, I look forward to seeing how it comes together.

The sources used appear to be very credible and the information in the article is cited well.

Best, Clearglasses (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)