User talk:Ewhiteh6/sandbox
Hello! I just wanted to inform you that I had the opportunity to read and review your Wikipedia article. I enjoyed reading and seeing the growth of the article's content. As compared to the live Wikipedia article on John Auer, this revised version is extremely comprehensive and eloquently written. The most notable difference in the content between this draft and the current article is that there are more technical details used to describe each of Auer's different contributions in pharmacology and physiology. I also thought your choice of organization of the content was very effective, even though it was not conventional. While there were many other strengths of your revision, I believe that one place the article can be improved is in the technicality of the language in the research sub-section. As someone with less experience in areas of science and medicine, I found some of the technical language distracting from the main message of the content. One suggestion I added in my review was to include hyperlinks to technical terms that might be difficult to understand to the general reader. Otherwise, this was an amazing revision of the article!
Amathu15 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review for John Auer article
[edit]Hello! I just wanted to inform you that I had the opportunity to read and review your Wikipedia article. I enjoyed reading and seeing the growth of the article's content. As compared to the live Wikipedia article on John Auer, this revised version is extremely comprehensive and eloquently written. The most notable difference in the content between this draft and the current article is that there are more technical details used to describe each of Auer's different contributions in pharmacology and physiology. I also thought your choice of organization of the content was very effective, even though it was not conventional. While there were many other strengths of your revision, I believe that one place the article can be improved is in the technicality of the language in the research sub-section. As someone with less experience in areas of science and medicine, I found some of the technical language distracting from the main message of the content. One suggestion I added in my review was to include hyperlinks to technical terms that might be difficult to understand to the general reader. Otherwise, this was an amazing revision of the article!