User talk:Sthai818/sandbox

TA Comments:

In-text citations: yes

Professional tone: yes

Paraphrasing real science: yes

Grammar and spelling: overall good

Links to other wiki articles: yes

Score: 20/20

Peer Review:

Your wikipedia page is very well written. I appreciate the links to other wikipedia pages for additional information. The structure of your article is very helpful for the audience to get some background in the first section and then the next sections go into more detail. I think your first section, regarding CAMEO, may need an in-text citation. I assume it comes from (1) but I think you should still put the (1) superscript at the end of the first paragraph. Also, your third paragraph does not have an in-text citation apart from the first sentence so I think you should add one there. Your tone is very professional and you did not editorialize, so that was great. From what I can tell, the you discuss the science in a clear and concise way that is very informative for the audience. The only suggestion in terms of content I have is perhaps expand on the first two lines of your second paragraph; I was a little bit confused as to what Jorgensen and Paderes were doing differently. They did not rely on mechanisms to predict products but rather reagents? Perhaps emphasize how their research was unique. My last note is that you mention Metevier once, but never again. Did Metevier contribute to any of the science discussed? Overall, I really enjoyed reading your wikipedia page/section and I think it will positively contribute to the Wikipedia community. Nikkiesingh (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SINGH, NIKKIE Peer Review Score: 20/20