User talk:Xyz789abc123/sandbox

Peer Review

I really like the changes you've made to this article so far. Especially the structural changes, like adding new sections and moving a bunch of information around. That said, I think you might want to consider combining a few of the one-sentence sections to make the article flow a little better. Structure is a good thing, but too much structure can make an article burdensome. One last small thing, commas go inside the quotation marks, not outside. Just sure you fix those before you take this into the mainspace. Good Work! --Rls13 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review on 4/5/18

I think you have made several strong contributions to this article. I especially like the history section, which adds critical information and context that was missing from the original article. I also like how you added information for other cancers not included in the original article. My main comments are:

1. This is small and nitpicky, but I think citations should go after the punctuation mark.

2. Make sure everything is cited - for example, the last paragraph of the history section and the controversy section lack citations

3. For the newly added controversy section, how do you think it interacts with “side effects” section?

Kmm257 (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article evaluation

Good job sourcing from academic and primary sources! More detail about the new cancer types that you're adding would be great (if it exists), and for the controversies section, perhaps mention more specific debates instead of just talking about the two sides — for example, are there any specific organizations/people that are advocating for/against certain treatments?