User talk:Scottylininger/sandbox

Scotty, Your title is longer, but I think that is just what your subject is, therefore, it is as simple as you can make it. The first sentence makes me realize how to compare and contrast your subjects, but it is somewhat long. I don’t know if that is changeable, but maybe try and make it clearer and more straightforward. I also am still confused on what your actual topic is without going to another website and searching for more explanation. The lead section could do a better job on summarizing your topic. I am a non-expert on this subject, and it is not very clear for me. The article does have a nonbiased tone and everything I read was grammar free. Your format looks like it has two titles rather than one title and subtitles. There are no pictures, maybe try and add one. Also, when grabbing information from your sources, try and cite them throughout the article using the “cite” button at the top of your sandbox. There are also no links in between Wikipedia articles. Overall, your ideas seem well written with no grammar issues, but maybe more organizations and citing inside the paragraphs could be used. Kmechley2 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall the information you added seems accurate and important to the subject of the article. Instead of having two main titles, I would make one of them a subtitle. Also I would add an introduction paragraph to introduce your topic and make the first sentence define your topic. The information is unbiased and all relates to the topic. In the second paragraph after the comma "There" is capitalized but I think it should be lowercase. Don't forget to cite your sources in the text using the "cite" option under visual editing in your sandbox. I would add a visual such as a picture if there is one available. Amyers311 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Ashley Diggs
Scotty, your title is a little long, but this may be needed considering the complexity of your topic. The first sentence of your article is useful and helps the reader understand why there is a article about this. However, I would consider breaking up this sentence into a few sentence to make it easier to understand. Also, in the first sentence, your topic should be in bold lettering. I would also consider linking other Wikipedia pages to some of the complex topics in the lead section, such as "anaerobic respiration." Overall, I think your lead section is a good summary of the entire article. Also, there should only be one title. So I would make your titles into headings and subheadings. Under the "Limitations" heading, you could probably make a subheading, because of the amount of information you have as well. Furthermore, make sure to cite your 5 sources throughout the entire article after every statment using the "cite" button. Right now it only shows that you have used two out of five of your sources. Considering the topic is about something most people don't know about, I was able to follow along because you used simple English which is good! The article also is biased free, making it very independent. I would consider adding a picture if you can, to give the reader a visual representation of what your talking about. Overall, you did a great job at explaining a confusing topic! Ashleydiggs (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)