User talk:Mitchwhite5/sandbox

Review from Dylan Collins: 1. This section is very well written and has a decent number of sources put in. Good introduction too. 2. One thing that could be beneficial is more data/statistics about Mars on how it is dangerous. For example what the average radiation is there compared to Earth. 3. Overall I think this is a very good contribution, possibly adding more statistics and sources to back what you wrote would be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcollins39 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review from Rachel Shapiro: 1. Your spread of sources is really nice - not too news article heavy while staying reliable. I'm wondering if you could include an academic article about radiation or bone/muscle atrophy in space? I think that would beef up your resources section a little. 2. I think your points are thorough and well-explained - I'm not left confused or wondering why, which is great! 3.The psychological implications of space exploration and colonization in mood disorders, such as depression and anxiety." is a nonsequitor - consider revising? 4. You use a long quote in the psychological impact section - could you summarize without quoting? 5. In the intro section, I think it reads easier if you switch the order of sentences: explain how long it will take to get to mars, then the longest recorded in space flight, etc. Important thing to focus on: tone. Your tone reads a little academic paper-y, while I think Wikipedia writing could be more formal and fact-forward. When editing, keep this in mind.

Great first draft!

Thank you for the feedback guys! I have made efforts to find more statistics on the effects on human health, specifically pertaining to radiation. Good catch on the non sequitur. I've pushed the page to Wikipedia and it has taken hold. Mitchwhite5 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]