User talk:Helen.r/sandbox

Peer Review, Carole Chaski Article

The lead section looks good. All the information is relevant to the rest of the article, and creates a good summary for the page. However, adding in the information about Chaski serving on the Brief Chronicles board would give readers of the article the most up-to-date information when they read the lead section. Especially if students or others in the future need to find quick information, having Chaski's current position in the lead section will provide helpful information.

All the links work and lead to reliable sources.

Great job on showing different views from various leaders in the field of Forensic Linguistics. One suggestion that I have is to possible split up the career information from accomplishments or what others have written about her. Try to provide a clearer timeline (if possible!) for Chaski's career, starting from post-college or post-PhD. Is there a time when Chaski created certain methodologies, etc. and are those dates available to document in the article? Also, under Publications and textbooks, were those written only by her or were there other authors? Those might also be important to mark down.

Overall, this article is looking great! Good job!

Megallicchio (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer View

1. I think so far this is really well written. The article outlines on what they are potentially going to say with what they will write in the future. The only thing that impressed me was the fact that she was at GWU because my brother goes to that school and his major in linguistics. The subject of what you are trying to get is clear, but most of the imformation you have in incomplete dude do lack of information actually written, but you do give us links that show is where and what you are trying to explain to us. 2. The only real thing i would change is actually putting more written information about Carole Chaoski, yeah having links work but to attract the audience quicker its better to have some things written out, this will benefit your page as a whole. The grammar and spelling are fine and really thought out well, it flows with the passage. I do really like how she put the examples of what she will be writing about and the links that are easily accessible to more information. The examples help the reader get a feel for what they will write about. 3. I feel as if question 3 is very similar to question 2. The most important thing i can see that could have been done to improve the article in to use some of the information in the links that they provided to us and write some of the information on the sanbox so we can see it. other than that i think this is pretty well thought out. Im enjoying the links that they provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajt174 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)