User talk:Rtimm7/sandbox

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? The original article does a nice job of clearly explaining what ear protection is, what it does, and why someone would need to wear it. The author uses terminology that is easy for the average wikipedia user to read and understand.

2.What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I believe the article could still use some supporting information. I appreciate that Rachel is adding more information on ear protection for hunters, but I also think more information for industrial type work environments would be useful. The article talks a little bit about hearing protection being required if individuals are exposed over an 8 hour time period, but information regarding the type of ear protection workers can utilize would be helpful.

3.What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Looking at Rachel's additions, I think one thing she could do to make the article better, would be to put the additions into more "reader friendly" words. Right now, there are words like "cochlear structures" that the average individual reading the article might not understand.

4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! After reading the original article and Rachel's additions, I think one of the main things I can do to make my article better, is take out more of the nonsense information, to make it easier for the reader to understand. Right now, there is a lot of information that I do not feel is needed for the reader to understand what an earplug is and what it can do. Crobertson4 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Courtney Robertson