User talk:Klayk/sandbox
Peer Review
[edit]I really like the content and structure of your article, as well as your range of references. I would like to see a bit more on HUAC and your Aftermath section Nicoleelkins (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The formatting on your article is great. I would suggest a fuller introductory section. IndigoSpranger (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Great article, well formatted and written! Your use of hyperlinks is excellent as is your choice of headings and sub headings. A few of the citations are not formatted properly, so check to make sure they're uniform. The aftermath section, as Nicole said, should be expanded. Fabulous work!Goldsteinmj (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Great job. It's clear that you've done your research. I think that the History section might encompass a little bit too much. Also, the first time you mention SANE and WILPF, you ought to tell what the acronyms represent. Later in the article, WILPF is explained, but SANE is not. Furthermore, I'm unsure how the "Post 1960's" section differentiates from "Aftermath." Perhaps the former would fit better as a subheading of the latter. On a different note, there's some sentence-level issues, but it's really not that big of a deal. Overall, as I previously stated, great job. I look forward to seeing the final product! Haassr (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Cerer- Peer Review
[edit]This is such a well-written article. Bravo! It really sounded like you were passionate about what you put onto this page. The only thing that really needs work is the intro, because its non-existent, but obviously this is a rough draft so I know you do not have all of it together just yet. Otherwise your sources and content look great! Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer.cerer (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Really well developed! You have a lot of good information to work with. I would suggest breaking up some of your sentences to be shorter and more concise. I would also rethink the subheadings under "History" to make sure there is a clear flow and that the information should be within its own subheading (rather than combined with another). Other than that I think it it looks peachy. Bankstonad (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)