User talk:Sierra Herndon/sandbox

Tanner Grimes Peer Review

In its entirety your structure is great. Not everything is there, however, your work is very easy to navigate through, making it seem like the final draft will be thorough and concise. Also, it looks like even though you're lacking the work for some subheadings, lists, etc. you still lay them out with a solid plan. On the other hand, too many lists or subheadings could leave a reader scatter brained and maybe disinterested, so as long as you maintain the balance between solidarity of your article and branching off I think you will have a real winner here. Your overview is very informative, but wouldn't hurt to provide a little more general information about NPI just for safe measure. Sources look credible and grammar is good throughout the entire article.

Overall your article checks all the boxes, keep up the good work!

Azfar Zulkifli Peer Review

I decided to peer review this article because the I found the topic interesting. When I opened up the base article, I was surprised to find how small and lacking the article was. It was clear that there was room for vast improvement and more content was a necessity. From the get-go, there weren't even any subheadings. So right off the bat, I would like to say "Hats off to you!" for incorporating subheadings into your draft. Also the Article Evaluation part is a phenomenal idea! The fact that you took the initiative to evaluate the article for yourself prior to doing research is progressive. This helps with tackling the issues that need to be addressed the most. For constructive criticism, I really cannot think of anything. Your overview does an excellent job of mapping out your plans. Overall you guys are off to a great start and I'm sure you will make tremendous contributions to this article! Azfarzulkifli (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)