User talk:Kthurber424/sandbox

Article Review

First off your lead section is great, its easy to understand. I feel like it has the relevant information noted, and that the sections reflect this. Next I also feel that your article has clear structure, I like how the article sections start chronologically with her early life and then her career as an artist. I also feel that the most relevant information is presented in each section. Now on the coverage I would say that most of the article is great, but the section on mystery novels is empty. But the sections that do have information come off as very straightforward and neutral. This article is written in a very neutral way overall, not presenting any sides but just the information. Although all of the sources aren't scholarly several of them are and the information from the non-scholarly sources is neutral. Kkmainiac (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC) PS. If you don't mind reviewing the edits for my article that would be much appreciated.

Bridget's Peer Review

I really enjoyed your edits! I think that they fleshed out the page a lot and had lots of valuable information. The new section is nice but maybe a little short for its own division, you might want to expand it or merge it with another section. I also think you did a good job staying neutral, just be sure to cite the specific examples you use. There is also a typo where you say " once of the originators " but that's the only one I caught. Overall very good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BridgetHomer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)