User talk:Salenamle/new sandbox

Jacob's peer review
Lead is short and informative, but it mentions that she was a radio commentator. That isn't explained anywhere else in the article. The book and the broadcast aren't also mentioned anywhere else in the article. I think that the fact she was one of the founder of Rachel Forster Hospital for Women could be here.

The sections are well organized. They make it easier to understand the article. The career life section should be longer because that's the important part of her achievements.

The article seems neutral. Sources are reliable but in the sources http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/harper-margaret-hilda-6570 and https://books.google.com/books?id=LhUNAQAAMAAJ&q=margaret+hilda+harper&dq=margaret+hilda+harper&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU8tvpnorjAhUthuAKHYjkCQYQ6AEIRTAF she is said to be the third child or second daughter of Rev. Andrew not the only child.

JacobJackowiak (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Shalini's Peer Review
The lead talks about the important topics and gives sufficient information about Margaret Hilda Harper. The lead reflects important topics listed in the rest of the article. The article is organized between the infobox, the lead, and the two main sections, Early life, and Career life. The article flows together. There are no points/ information in the article that is unnecessary. In the Career Life section, maybe splitting the large paragraph into two will make it easier to read. Information is great, just it seems a lot since it's in one large paragraph. The article just states facts and does not draw to any conclusion. You did not write any personal opinions, so the articles come from a neutral point of view. All of your sources come from a reliable source like published articles and books. In general, your article contains a lot of information, fluid, and generally easy to understand. ShaliniMoua (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Shalini Moua