User talk:Akgreg25/Author

Peer Review
This is a peer review for @Akgreg25 for the "Author" article.

- The author "is" rather than "is thought of." This would be more concrete. - Maybe "additionally" rather than "however" to avoid negative terminology. - Though useful, I think the Byliner article source is not the most reliable source. I would suggest Searching on Cal Poly Library's OneSearch for more peer reviewed articles. - As an English major I think the "philosophical views of authorship" is an important section because it recognizes the creative process. I wonder why the legal and copyright sections are ordered first, but this might be my bias. - Your third source is reliable and neutral. Good choice. - Your first source is a .gov website. Objective and reliable. Good choice. - Regarding the following quote, I think the number in the job market is a valuable statistic. The second half about the median pay would make sense in a later section (the Pay section). Maybe you will consider moving both to that Pay section as related information. It is great that you updated these statistics to 2022 from the previous 2016! "As of 2022, roughly 151,200 people in the United States worked as authors, making an annual median wage of $73,150[3]"

Great job so far and keep up the good work! It is a long article. 129.65.35.132 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC Addutra (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)