User talk:ATekatch/sandbox

Peer review

The current editing made to the article 'freshnet' is really good. The original statement was complicated and didn't make much sense, whereas, the changes made make it much more coherent and clear. The notes made on possible edits are also good and relevant, with many references stated. Perhaps more content could be added about the specific meteorological relevance to freshnets, as it is a meteorology wiki project. Great work! (Fls098 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC))

Peer review from Jocelyn

This is a well constructed draft that covered more details about the freshet and wrote in a neutral tone. It is easier to follow when there are subheadings rather than a whole paragraph. The sources used in this draft are all reliable which are from professional books and articles. However you need to rewrite the lead section cause the original one looks like no structures and it is too long. Excellent job!Jocelyn519 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Vic's Peer Review

Hi ATekatch,

Your draft is well organized, with a neutral tone and utilizes reliable sources. I liked how you had different subheadings to differentiate between the cause, ecology and history of Freshets. It may be wise to reconsider the chronology of the subheadings (i.e. stating the history before going into the ecology section). I also liked that you used primary and secondary sources to support your statements. Moving forward, if you choose to keep your information as jot points, ensure not to include periods (punctuation)-- jot points do not have sentence format. This can be easily corrected by increasing the number of points or creating a paragraph. Overall a great start! VicBlake (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)