User talk:C.suaste/sandbox

Peer Review by Bellavrapciu

1. I thought the introduction section was really good. It was written well in my opinion. I think that it was good for laying out what the rest of the article is going to talk about. I like how you mentioned her awards and recognitions in the beginning, it made me feel like she is important and I should read about her. My favorite sentence from the introduction is when you said "she is an engineer, spokesperson, and advocate for women in engineering and technology." I thought that this particular sentence highlights how many things she is known for and her versatility. Overall, the introduction did everything for me that it was supposed to. It laid out the rest of the article well, and it made me really interested in reading more about her, which I think is pretty successful.

2. A change that I would suggest would be probably I would restructure the article slightly and change some of the sections. For the biography section, I would suggest removing that section completely and maybe incorporating that information under the "early life" section. I feel like it is a little too short to be its own section and I think it would make sense to put it under the early life section if you could transition into talking about it there. Or, you could even incorporate that under the "education" section. You start off talking about her high school math teach in the "education" section so that could work with what you have under the "biography" section.

3. The most important thing you could do to improve the article would probably be to restructure it a little and change the organization. I feel like overall the article is really good! I like all the information and it feels like I am reading something that is actually published which is pretty cool. I think I would recommend focusing on the individual sections and perhaps combining them. They seem kind of short and it makes it look like there is not much information that you guys have. Other than that, I think it is great and captivating!

4. There are definitely a few things I have seen in your article that I could use for mine. For instance, I really like in the introduction how you stated all her awards and recognitions, as previously mentioned. The person that my group is writing an article for also has some recognitions, which we stated under the "career" section. I think we could definitely use your model and state them in the introduction. It's a good idea that we didn't even think of.

5. I felt like changing the sections was too major for me to do, so I reworded the early life section a bit. I saw a slight grammatical error so I fixed that. I also reworded a sentence to make it more clear.

Bellavrapciu (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Bellavrapciu

Peer Review AubrieDaVall

I peer reviewed your article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AubrieDaVall/Debbie_Sterling/AubrieDaVall_Peer_Review

1. I like the lead section, it really sets up the rest of the article well. The amount of information is really good, almost everything has sources which is great. Your sources look like I really like how much information you put on her specific career steps to get where she is today, and how you give equal emphasis to all of it. 2.There is not too much I would change, I would consider making an awards section for her seeing as she and her creation have a notable amount of awards. Another thing is possibly adding the things that were mentioned about her education in the biography section to the education section, and combining the personal life and early life sections into the biography. Another thing is to change the flow of the career section, some of it is slightly stilted. 3.I think the most important thing to do which would help with flow and continuity would be to reorganize some of your information. In all the article is really clear and neutral with only very small details that could be changed. 4.One thing that I think my group could learn from yours is the structure of the lead. I think that you introduced the rest of the article really well with it, providing a lot of information to explain what she’s known for, I think that my group could learn from that and structure our lead section better. 5.I didn’t edit too much, most of what I did was adding or taking away from a couple sentences to help with the flow. --AubrieDaVall (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Mashaljiw22

1. I really liked your intro paragraph. It is very clear and gets straight to the point of what Debbie Sterling is truly known for. I also like how you listed her major accomplishments and awards because it gives the reader a good idea of the importance of what she created. In the education section I like how you went deeper than just what degree she got by talking about what inspired her and led her to that path. I think the career section is very well written. It takes you from what she did right after college to how she got to where she is today. Even small things like her volunteer work are mentioned. I also really like how you take the reader on a journey of how Sterling created this brand. It almost makes it feel like it’s a story but it is still made of all facts and written neutrally. Overall there is a lot of good information in this article and it is written very well with good sources.

2. I like how detailed your intro is but I suggest that you remove the sentence from the second paragraph of the intro that is about her going to Stanford because that is already mentioned in the education section of your article. Next the biography section of your article is not really a biography it is more of just a look into one part of her life. I suggest that you remove the biography section and take those sentences and add them to the early life section since they talk about her highschool experience. Also the sentence in the education section that talks about how her math teacher recommended she look into engineering is repetitive since it was already mentioned in the biography section so I suggest that you remove the sentence from one of the sections. I also noticed that in the second paragraph of the intro you talk about things that are already mentioned in the career section. Lastly I suggest that you try and find more information about her personal life since you only have one sentence.

3. The most important thing you can do to improve your article is make sure that there are no repetitive sentences. Also clean up the smaller beginning sections and join some of them together such as biography and early life.

4. I noticed that in your article the career section is very well organized and easy to follow along and I feel like we could clean up our career section a little bit more.

5. I removed the section about Sterling’s college in the intro paragraph because it is already mentioned in the education section. I also fixed some grammatical errors. Mashaljiw22 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by NathalyRuiz60

1. You all excelled at keeping things concise while still delivering information. Not a bit of fluff text that I can identify. Your lead section is also solid. It gave me a good idea of what she'd accomplished and why she was notable before I even reached the main body. There were ample sources and citations. The few sources I recognize I remember being reliable and independent so I'll trust the rest of them. You've done so well so far.

2. Most of the changes I have to suggest involve where things go. What you have now is great, but maybe it'd help to make use of subheadings? A lot of these sections (Early life, Education, the bit under Biography) feel like they could fit under Personal life as subsections. It was recommended to us to split our person's life into career and personal life and it would work well with what you have already. Other than that I can't think of any changes to make

3. Besides expanding with any new information you might acquire later on, the best thing you all can do is read these peer reviews and take our proposed changes into consideration as you continue revising your draft.

4. Your career section is cut into neat, digestible paragraphs. Ours is a wall of text with several ideas that deserve their own paragraphs all stuck together. That's something to change.

5. I blue-linked Stanford University and changed some wording in the career section to help those sentences flow a little better. Not as bold as I could've been, I'll admit.

Nathalyruiz60 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)