User talk:Tdaetaunm/sandbox

Draft Peer Review
Hey Tatum,

Going by the training module on peer review there is apparently supposed to be a lead to your article which essentially functions as an introduction to what you’re going to be talking about (something that I myself have to create in my draft).I am not sure if your first paragraph is meant to be your “lead” because the first few sentences feel like an introduction to what you’re planning on discussing. Also, each detail you give regarding the optimization and conservation that comes with interior design makes the first paragraph feel like a great outline for the article as a whole. With that, labeling each section will help give the reader a bit more structure when navigating your article.

In relation to balance, the length of each paragraph coincides with one another. This makes me as the reader feel that you’ve given enough attention to each section which really strengthens your article. I would say however that your second paragraph lacks sufficient citation in relation to your other paragraphs, so maybe adding more data to the details about sustainable interior design will help the reader feel more secure in what you’re saying. With that being said, your last paragraph is very strong and informative! I think using that same structure in your second paragraph would really impact your entire article. Regarding various viewpoints, it seems that this article focuses mainly on sustainable interior design which can make it feel a little “one sided”. Granted, I do not know enough about your topic to claim that confidently, but if there are elements in that topic that provide an alternate point of view that would work very well in your article.

The tone of your article is substantially neutral. You provide a great balance of what sustainable interior design is and how it is practically implemented. Going back to what I said earlier about providing more sources in the second paragraph, I think that will also help with the neutrality of your article because it shows the reader that you’re not writing down your opinions but facts that have been thoroughly researched.

It appears that the majority of your sourced material is gsa.gov. The training modules mentions how using a predominant source can make the article seem like it’s leaning towards a particular perspective. Looking at your bibliography, it seems mostly diverse and credible but I would just keep close attention to the areas where your sources begin to repeat themselves. Overall, your sources seem very reliable though!

All in all, your article is very interesting and you did a great job on your draft!

Marta Marta.tkachuk (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Marta!
 * Thank you so much for reviewing my draft for this project. I really appreciate your commentary on the topic I have chosen and how I approached providing further information on it. I haven taken note of your edits to add a "lead" to my article and to also watch out for sounding too one-sided towards the topic. I will be sure to fix these in the future. Thank you again!
 * Tatum DeMarco Tdaetaunm (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review-Gabriel Delgado
Tatum,

According to the training module I will be critiquing you article's lead section, structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliability or sources.

Regarding your lead section, in your Article Draft there is no clear indication which part is your lead section. Of course since this a draft and your are adding onto an article, it might not be so applicable at the moment. However, reading the first paragraph of your article does give me a sense of what is going on and what you will be evaluating in your article. I cannot say if your led adds more weight to certain parts of the article or over weights the article in generals since there is no clear lead section.

As far as structure, it does loo like your article does talk abut a multitude of ideas within it. However, similar to your lead section, there are not indications/separate section titles for your different points. Adding section tittles would make the article easier to understand. The order of your article does flow very well, regarding the actual material/content. Going from healthy elements/function of design to sustainability design adds emphasis and builds depth to your article.

For the balance of your article, all your section lengths to seem to be proportional to each other. Nothing in the article seems unnecessary or out of place. There are not any significant viewpoints left out in the article, it does seem to address the majors points of suitable design. I would recommend maybe including a history section or adding more to your current section in general. It does not draw any significant conclusions that tries to convince the readers to accept on view point.

The neutrality of your article is very fair and balanced. It does not seem to favor one side of the topic nor doe it try to make false claims/accusation. I do however sense that I can guess the perspective of the author, though this may be due to fact that we actually know each other. No words or phrases seem to be out of place or feel un-neutral. Overall it does focus more on the positive information of sustainable design, not that thesis a bad thing. Sustainability in general is guided more towards improvement and efficiency but, maybe including a section about negative impacts could add depth and strengthen the article overall.

Regarding the sources you are using in your article, most do see to be reliable to use. You do have a variety of types of sources as well an a variety in general. You also have begun adding citations in your article, making it easier to understand the material. Most statements in your article are tied with a source. Some statements in t=your article are un-sourced yet you have mentioned in bold why you haven't edited/what you plan to do with that certain information.

Overall, your article does a great job or going in depth about content and material, it just needs to be more organized and have a clear structure. -Gabriel Delgado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielramon43 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey Gabriel,
 * Thank you for reviewing the draft I have written up on my topic choice for this topic. I appreciate the edits you suggested for the draft. Marta, who reviewed my draft prior, also commented on my draft's lacking of a lead, so that is something I will be sure to work on and edit in the future. I also appreciate the edit you suggested in regards to organizing my structure by adding something, such as section titles, to break the information up and making it easier to read. Moving forward, I will work on these. Thanks again!
 * Tatum DeMarco Tdaetaunm (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Emma Dart's Peer Review
Very well put together first draft! Really enjoyed reading and was easy to follow. Some of thing that I would change would maybe look into reducing run on sentences. For example the first sentence of the second paragraph, “Sustainable Interior Design can be incorporated through various techniques: water efficiency, energy efficiency, using non-toxic, sustainable or recycled materials, using manufactured processes and producing products with more energy efficiency, building longer lasting and better functioning products, designing reusable and recyclable products, following the sustainable design standards and guidelines, and more.” could be broken down into a couple of smaller sentences where you can go more into detail about these various techniques. I would also recommend adding some photographs of visuals, especially within the second and third paragraph so the reader can get a better understanding through a visual aspect. Overall a great first draft. I think the next steps are just cleaning up some sentences, adding visuals and incorporating a few more sources. Great Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmadart (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Emma!
 * Thank you for reviewing my draft on Sustainable Design. I appreciate the positivity and optimism towards my draft. I'm very grateful you pointed out my use of run-on sentences, as this is something I am guilty of, even in my academic essays, so I do not want to include them in my article. I also agree with your suggestion to add visual aids. As a design major, it is very easy for me to read, understand, and visualize what is being described, however I don't think the exact same can be said for non-design majors. Visuals will, hopefully, help to diminish this though. Thank you again! Moving forward with this project, I will be sure to correct these errors.
 * Tatum DeMarco Tdaetaunm (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)