User talk:BrandonS23/sandbox

Feedback from User JackJames37
What does the article (or section) do well?

The information about Fiss' views is concise.

What changes would you suggest overall?

When you mention Fiss, you should redirect to another wikipedia page, about Fris.

I would also link to a wikipedia definition of the word "parlitarlian"

For future sections, I would talk about opinions/reactions to Fiss's theories.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

I would remove the use of the word "important" because wikipedia articles should be as neutral as possible. If you meant to say that Fiss says XXX is important, then you should clarify that, so it doesn't sound as if that is your personal opinion.

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!

Your use of direct quotes adds credibility. I will do that in my own article later on.

Viren Peer Response 11/4/2022
What does the article (or section) do well?

The Audience Centric Model is explained well, it paints a clear picture of what the idea is.

What changes would you suggest overall?

You could add a link to the book's Wikipedia article if there is one. Also, I think adding a section about reactions to his ideas could be good.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

One thing you could do is ideally add a quote or two from that book that relates to the Audience Centric Model, and why Owen Fiss thinks its important.

'''Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!'''

I liked how it is pretty clearly laid out and worded, which makes it easier to follow and read about. Vpatel225 (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)