This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I would like to improve it. Plus I am having a specific problem with formatting the References section and do not understand how to get the list to number correctly.
Watch out for proper period placement and spacing with citations. This happens a lot with newcomers. Examples: "ge[1]." instead of "ge.[1]" or "stP [1]" instead of "stP[1]"
Try to avoid non-neutral language like "notable achievements" or "noted British particle physicist" or "well-known." For example, instead of saying "noted" tell us what he is noteworthy for.
The structure seems a bit odd to me. Instead of having two career sections, I would try to break it out chronologically. Awards could be integrated into the subject's history as well
The article is really large for having only five citations. An article of that size might - in some cases- have 50-100 citations. More research could really boost the article.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I would like to improve it. Plus I am having a specific problem with formatting the References section and do not understand how to get the list to number correctly.
Watch out for proper period placement and spacing with citations. This happens a lot with newcomers. Examples: "ge[1]." instead of "ge.[1]" or "stP [1]" instead of "stP[1]"
Try to avoid non-neutral language like "notable achievements" or "noted British particle physicist" or "well-known." For example, instead of saying "noted" tell us what he is noteworthy for.
The structure seems a bit odd to me. Instead of having two career sections, I would try to break it out chronologically. Awards could be integrated into the subject's history as well
The article is really large for having only five citations. An article of that size might - in some cases- have 50-100 citations. More research could really boost the article.