User talk:Gld04/sandbox

Peer Review

Regarding the lead section, the first sentence looks good - it is straightforward and we are immediately able to tell who Pamela Lopker is. One fact to include somewhere in the lead section would be the year she was born or the year she became CEO. This way the reader can get a general time frame of the article. There also isn't a summary. I think just a sentence on each of the topics you write about would help the reader to a get a more specific idea of Lopker's life and impact. Overall, the information that has been entered in here has been a major expansion of the article that it started out as, and contains some very valuable informationthat the article needed in order to provide information well. Comparing your article to a similarly constructed article for another businesswoman (Heather Bresch), I believe that you should do a bit more research on her early life and then pair that along with education at the top and leave "personal life" for experiences nowin case you find anything more throughout your research. Comparing the amount of information on careers here, it would be nice if there was a bit more information than there is now, possibly segmented by subheadings, but I am unsure about the amount of information that is available for Pamela Lopker. In terms of neutrality, it appears as though there is no hidden bias or opinions present so great job with that. Also, don't forget to properly cite your sources!

Maria, Nick, & Lucy