User talk:Longnat/sandbox

I added a title to the article. Then, I deleted" medically significant" since the use of "signicant" doesn't sound neutral. I also hyperlinked some terms that you mention such as "half-life", "decay energy", and "fission" to provide clarity. In the "Production" passage, I changed "Strontium" to "Strontium-90". I believe you meant to keep it as Strontium-90, but I'm not entirely sure. If you did mean to say "Strontium", I'd recommend hyperlinking it.

Angie's peer edit

There is a good title that is simple/short
The first sentence is direct and tells what yttrium is and it's purpose.
I don't see a lead that sums up the whole article.
The article is clear to non-experts adding in the hyberlinks to certain words was a great thing to add!
The formatting throughout the article is consistent and the grammar is good.
There isn't any sentences containing first or second person or bias.
All 5 sources are used and are reliable.

Angelamikel (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce's revision

there is a title
all five sources are added
There is a perfect introduction sentence
The summary has every point in his article
All the content is in the body
Organization is great
the content has all relevant parts
the balance of the article does not favor one side
The tone is neutral and appropriate
The images added show give the article a good picture of his subject
The citations and sources are correct
the article seems to be complete
All the new sections and gaps are filled in and in a great re-organization format
The coverage and article body are set correctly

Overall, this article is a great example of a wikipedia article. Good job.