Peer Review of Proof by https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w Made with a lightning strike of genius en-us 2020-12-08 19:41:24 UTC 2026-01-12 20:23:51 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007487741 1. The proof has all of the required parts of a proof.
2. The best parts are when the proof explains what properties and definitions it's using. It also has a check in the form of checking the other vertical angle.
3. The proof could've been more concise because it's repeating a lot of points.
4. Why are the angles next to each other supplementary?]]> 2020-12-10 18:42:31 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007487741 https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007496507 1.  The paragraph contains all the parts required for the proof: the given, the definitions and properties, and reasoning based on evidence.
2. Our favorite part is that it is straightforward by stating all the reasons with the mathematical evidence.
3. Some parts of the first two paragraphs don't flow really well, as the grammar is confusing in the last two sentences of the first two paragraphs, so its not very clear.

]]> 2020-12-10 18:44:27 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007496507 https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007496847 1. The proof has all of the required parts.
2. It's well proven and explains everything.
3. Already has all of the necessary components but could've been made easier to read.
4. ]]> 2020-12-10 18:44:32 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007496847 https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007498100 1.) The proof has all the required parts of a proof.
2.) A good explanation but not over the top/ concise.
3.) A thing that the proof could improve on is giving more information on the properties. They should specify that the angles that are next to each other do not create a vertical angle.
4.) No questions]]> 2020-12-10 18:44:49 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007498100 https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007515348 1.) It has all of the required parts of a proof
2.) The best parts were the clarity of the equations and the use of the properties to justify the proof
3.) The proof could be more concise, specifically the second paragraph
4.) No questions]]> 2020-12-10 18:48:35 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007515348 1.Yes 2.It sounds very professional and it flows well. It explains reasoning very clearly. 3.This needs a diagram with it. 4.A question we still have is: How did you link the last paragraph to the conclusion? It is very unclear in this example. https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007519795 2020-12-10 18:49:32 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007519795 1. The proof has all the required parts https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007523569 2. clearly states properties
3. Really wordy, could be more clear and concise]]> 2020-12-10 18:50:18 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007523569 The proof had all of the parts. https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007532937 The proof explains the properties and it also has a check.
There was a lot of repetition in the numbers.
Not really any questions.]]> 2020-12-10 18:52:17 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007532937 Peer Review Proof 3 https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007540411 1. We think that the paragraph has all required parts of a proof.
2. One of the best parts of the proof is that it tells us what property it's using.
3. One thing that can be improved is how concise it can be, perhaps the writer can be more clear with their wording.
4. No questions.]]> 2020-12-10 18:53:51 UTC https://padlet.com/stohls/h8un58ibnhk9ce7w/wish/1007540411