User talk:Bilybt/sandbox

Overall it's pretty a pretty solid edit to an article. You use a lot of links to other pages to provide context throughout the article and you paraphrase everything really well. Everything is worded pretty well and none of the paragraphs seem too wordy or not wordy enough.

Make sure you include your citations at the bottom of the article and cite everything within the article. Also watch out for awkward comma placement like the first sentence of the third paragraph. The comma after Diahann Carroll is kind of awkward. Also make sure to not make the lead section too bulky. Maybe put the first paragraph as the lead section then make a new sub-section for the following paragraphs. Like, a "history" section or something.

The first sentence of your lead section is very direct and clear to a first time reader. Your article is also clearly written in a neutral point of view, nothing seems biased. Your article allows readers to decide for themselves and take their research from there.

The formatting is pretty consistent with the rest of Wikipedia articles, except for the sections/subsections, and it appears you proofread your article well. The article is also clear to a non-expert in the subject.

You also added a substantial amount of content to a almost completely bare article, which is pretty good. Good job!

Mossmh: I believe it's a great article but I believe you could beef it up by adding pictures,references,subsections,etc. So the information you have is good for sure but if you could format it better then you would be much better off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossmh (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)