User talk:Stormyruiz/sandbox

Hank's peer review

Overall this article looks great, a good in depth but not too jargon-filled description of this process. My suggestions for improvement include potentially rewording the last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading "Purpose of a chaperone," and adding specific examples from the various fields mentioned in the applications section. The addition of examples in this section would possibly make the process clearer to those familiar with specific processes in these various other fields. Great job! Hgrier (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta's peer review

Hi. I'm your second peer reviewer. This is a detailed and well-written article, especially considering its size. This makes it ideal for linking ot large numbers of other science articles. For example "extensive secondary but not tertiary structure" could be replaced with "extensive secondary but not tertiary structure" which would improve readability for someone without the appropriate knowledge without compromising readability for more advanced readers. On the other hand, Wikipedia does not have a good definition of what a "crystal contact" is anywhere, so I would consider defining it as briefly as possible after you use it. Lastly, at the beginning of the "Applications" section, I would recommend the more active "is used in" over the suggestive "can be used in". Good luck! Penrose Delta (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]