TA Comments:
In-text citations: Articles are listed, however, in-text citations are not used. Rather than having a long of articles with only a sentence explanation for each, write actual paragraphs that cite the relevant research articles.
Professional tone: yes
Paraphrasing real science: yes
Grammar and spelling: overall good
Links to other wiki articles: none
Score: 17/20
Peer Review:
I like how you explained the significance of the publications. Maybe you could expand on the explanations a little more, or link some key words to other existing Wikipedia pages so the reader can understand what's going on a little better. Remember, most of the general public doesn't have an extensive science background. Also, make sure to have an explanation for every article you choose to include. If it's important enough to be included, let the reader know why.
I like the organization; the sections are clear and make sense. One note on format though, it might be a little less cluttered if you just type the title of the paper in the main body of the article, and leave the full citations in the references section.
WILLIAMS, KELSEY Peer Review Score: 20/20
Start a discussion about improving the User:Lqwei/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Lqwei/sandbox" page.
