User talk:Arodr1334/sandbox

corporate social responsibility add the topic of sustainability, social sustainability,

Leonardo peer review

after reading your article it is clear that it does have a clear structure and foundation. It is an article that is neutral and sticks to the facts which is good. I noticed you put a couple quotes in there and I just want to make sure that these aren't direct quotes due to wikipedia writing being different from academic so direct quotes might not be allowed.IF you could paraphrase it in your own words and state them as a reference under that would be good.The topic is good and clearly business ethics related. I like how you have a category for possible additions, it will really help for you to keep in mind which areas you may possibly add and how to organize them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgonz498 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

New subject
Hello,

I would like to add a new section to the article: Additional information to possibly add Corporate social responsibility can prove to be more profitable for companies and to extend it survivability in markets because greater awareness, in both social and business markets, has been in higher demand. Add this picture:

This image is a map of the global carbon emissions from 1950-2000. Customers have responded with overall satisfaction and loyalty when companies have a better CSR, especially in countries like Spain and Brazil. Culture has an impact on the CSR ratings and studies, as well as human values across different nations. Arodr1334 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Arodr1334

Jennifer's peer review
Hi!

I read the edits you made to your article and I found the article to be pretty interesting. I think you did some good things, but there are other things that need some more editing to be done. I reviewed your edits and I read the original article of "Corporate Environmental Responsibility". I noticed in the original article, there is not a strong lead section. The lead section just has one sentence that defines what CER is. I noticed that you are not editing this section and I think you should. I think some of the information you added in your sandbox under the heading of "Corporate environmental responsibility" should be added to the lead section.

Also, I do not really know what to say in regards to your organization because the edits you made did not fall under a certain section like "main elements" or "background". However, I did notice that the original article has a section named "Summary". I advise to remove this section because it is not necessary to add a summary of what has been said throughout the article at the end.

In addition, I think you did a great job in regards to presenting different viewpoints. For example, you added developed companies and underdeveloped companies, as well as, the companies' perspective and customers' perspective. The edits you did and the overall original article did an awesome job in staying neutral. I would not be able to know what is your perspective on the article.

The sources in your edits and the original article are reliable sources. However, I think you should edit some sources in your references that have some red markings such as "Check" and "line feed character". Also, I think you should cite more sources in some parts where I am not sure that the source is supporting a specific sentence, too. For example, for the first sentence in the third paragraph of the section"corporate environmental responsibility", I am not sure if the citation you added in the end is also supporting the first sentence of that paragraph. Overall, I think you are doing a good job. I hope this helps.Jennifert02 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Prof R Feedback
adding the global § (worldwide perspectives) is a necessary improvement--kudos! i think the new CER § would go well as part of the lead ¶...the photo is a good visual of the situation...be careful with tone--lacking neutrality in some areas  Micalva (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)