User talk:Perfect Majesty

Peer Review

What does the article (or section) do well? I think the article is organized extremely well and is very detailed. It seems like a lot of time and effort was put into this article. The advantages and disadvantages of this technology is explained which adds to the neutrality of the article. The timeline of the technology also makes it easy to follow.

What changes would you suggest overall? I suggest adding more graphics/videos into the biomechanical methods section. I think these graphics really help the reader follow along and gain a sense of what the information is trying to explain.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? I was also wondering if there are any more applications/usage for this technology.

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know! Overall, this article looks amazing and is organized extremely well. It is very aesthetic and the content is explained thoroughly with many sources included throughout.

Lunger21 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review

Small thing, but I suggest you bold the topic of your article in the first sentence. Also, carbon fiber is bolded in the summary section for some reason.

You have a pretty good amount of text, which is great, but I feel like you might want more sources

I think that your use of images is great, though I suppose that a reader searching for "cell biomechanics" might not yet be an expert in this topic and would want more information on the various techniques you list. For example, include images of all the apparatuses you talk about and explain on a more basic level what they tell you, what sorts of data they output, what are the best situations to use them perhaps. You generally have a lot of the "how" of each technology, but not a lot of the "why" and how they connect to your central topic

The first few sentences of the "Future research" don't really make sense, fix your tense usage or just rewrite those sentences. It's also confusing because more than half of this section is talking about what has been done in the past or is being done currently.

I think you can add more to the "Future research" section, it feels like you rush through a few topics without really explaining them much. Sandrawolfe dreamcatcher (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)