User talk:Tmallory3/sandbox

Peer Review By Melody Pogula
Lead: The lead has all the important info (I would change whom to who).

Organization/neutrality/balance: All the sections are balanced and neutral with a good organization structure that hits all the main points. If possible I would add a bit more info about maybe the people in her life or any big projects she did. Also if you get the chance near the end, go through your article and smooth out the sentences in a way that makes them flow together more.

Sources: you reference list has a variety and looks reliable.

You have a lot of details/information on your person. The only things I think you need do is add a little more background info and smooth over any little grammar mistakes or transitions. :)

Melody Pogula (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Melody Pogula

Kevin's peer review of Tim's article
The article has a pretty good lead, I can get the importance of the women since she's in the math society. It focused on the achievement of the subject, and should include a bit more info about her personal life and maybe education.

The structure of this article is pretty clear.

The article has a balanced coverage. It focused equally on every section, but it might be good to focus on edu and career more since she's a mathematician. And the Education part need more info, like what's her focus, which subjects did she learn.

The article is very neutural, I can't find any bias, or trying to convince the readers on certain points. At the end the author supports women' right, which is ok I assume. There' not too much positive or negetive stuff.

Checked all the citations, all reliable.

Haochendai (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Haochen Dai