User talk:Sgmcalpi/sandbox

Peer Review by Megan Cavrak
1. The tone was very neutral, which is important for a Wikipedia article. The student did not take any positive or negative stance on the person. 2. Some of the wording seemed like it could have been taken straight from a source without paraphrasing. I got this sense just because some of the wording was awkward in making it a sentence as if it were a direct phrase from a website. 3. The wording on some of the research was very intense. I think it could have been broken down a little more to contribute to the overall understanding of the scientist. 4. The selected works list was a nice addition that I did not think about adding to mine. One thing that maybe could be added is that there could be a reference to which works have been cited the most, how many times each had been cited, etc. 5. I'm not sure what resources are available online for this scientist, but one thing that possibly could be added is more about the scientist's personal life outside of science. Again, I don't know exactly if this is online, but it could be a nice addition if it is.

Great job overall! I really enjoyed reading the article. I think you did a great job.