User talk:Spspriggs17/sandbox

Peer Review by Amsmiley16 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The link for your citation works and it is written in a factual, neutral manner. I like that you made terms such as human genetics, evolutionary genetics, etc. have hyperlinks and you gave a definition for them. This makes them easier to understand, but they still have a little bit of jargon in them such as "gene expression," "genetic code," and "genome" that other people might not understand. Overall, I think your addition fits into the page well. Moving forward, I would just try to put the page in easier language to understand. It looks good!

Peer Review from Riley Piek
What you have in your sandbox so far is really good. It seems well researched and it adds necessary information to your page. The only thing I could think of adding to it would be more citations for one or two more words. The real problem though may be out of your hand, and that is your page you are working on. It seems very jumbled and confusing. There are no clear sections and it seems to just be a run on paragraph with a chart thrown into the center of it. I would suggest to severely reduce the lead and add clear sections if you can. Other than that, great job! Rspiek17 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)