User talk:Autumns310/sandbox

Baumgartner Review
I am pleased that you have done a evaluation. I am not sure what the review of "Sight words" and then "curriculum studies" means. Are these separate articles? Are these sections within the "sight words" article? When you go to add the information to the "sight words" article, make sure that you write a statement that can be supported by a source. It would be best to write less and have it fully supported than to write more without support. Every change that you make in the article you need to record in the Talk page for the article- what changes you have made and why.Jj baumgartner (talk)Jj baumgartner

Thank you for your feedback and I apologize for the confusion. The two article reviews were part of one of the earlier Wikipedia exercises. I have removed the "curriculum studies" review from my sandbox. I will be sure to cite strong sources and to add links to other relevant articles, as well as discuss my edits in the Talk page. Thank you! Autumns310 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Jaimie's Peer Review
It looks like you are off to a good start by stating all the things that you want to go back and edit from the original article! It makes me want to go back and look at my original article and add that to it so I have a checklist to make sure I add everything I originally intended to add to the article! Your topic is really interesting and could become a really good article. A great thing to add may be the reasoning behind why sight words are so important to know quickly and how they benefit a reader to practice them daily. Jknig38 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I will be sure to incorporate more referenced information on the benefits of teaching sight words in addition to general information. Thanks! Autumns310 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Kathryn's Peer Review
I think this article is really great so far and that you have a great plan as to what you are going to do. One thing that I noticed is that some of the sentences can make this article difficult to read. Some of the sentences are really long so I think it may be important to look at some of those sentences. I also think that many of the sentences need proof and less explanation. May of the sentences are long and thought out, but many of these also do not have evidence or links. Great job though!Kbryso1 (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Another peer reviewer commented that I my writing for this article should be more informative than if I were writing a paper for a class. I feel that by addressing this, I will be able to produce sentences that are easier to read and not as lengthy. Additionally, I will double check that I have all of my sources cited when finalizing the article. Thanks! Autumns310 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sydney's Peer Review
The article looks great to me so far! I really liked how you first listed your article evaluation. By doing this, you mapped out what needed work in your article. I agree with your statement in your article evaluation that said the article seemed biased without neutral tone. When I first read the article, I thought the same thing! I also like that you added more research on sight words in the article. I believe that studied research is important when supporting a topic. Obviously I am no Wikipedia expert, but your edits look good to me! Streme2 (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I'm glad to hear that my edits accomplished the goals that I had set for the article. Thanks again! Autumns310 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)