User talk:Cacrotty/sandbox

Thank you for helping out.

Catherine's Peer Review
Hi Catherine, a little late for your peer review but nonetheless I have some feedback and suggestions on how to keep improving your article page on Omega Point.

First, you are clearly knowledgeable about Omega Point and have put in a ton of work into researching the topic. I am very impressed. Your sources seem to be properly cited and I liked your use of maximizing the content from each source into your page. Upon viewing the Omega Point page history, I have to say that you were both extremely confident and flexible in attacking this project. The community seemed to accept your contributions and efforts towards improving the page while also discounting your belief to include the Scientific evaluation section. I think your agreement to discard that section gained further cooperation from the other users and may have been better in the end.

I have to complement you on the level of organization you applied to this page. Looking at the page from before you began this project to the page as it stands today, it is clear that your work on Omega Point has motivated others to take pride in this page. Along with your contributions, the other users followed suit by modifying the presentation of their sourced material. As a result of this complete engagement with the Wikipedia community, I do not think that I have any suggestions of possible sections you may add or subtract from the current page. I feel that you all have done a great job with this article.

Since you have already added your work to the page, I have actually decided to engage with the page itself and make some of my editing changes directly through the source text. I would like you to take a moment and review the changes that I made to see if you are ok with those. They were mainly formatting and grammatical fixes, and really only one change where I corrected "Tipler's Phenomenon of Man" to "Teilhard's Phenomenon of Man." The other changes were just to sentences that I felt could be rewritten in a more concise or clear manner. I also wanted to apply parallelism to the Evolution and Formal Properties sub-headings since they both used numerical ordering.

Again, I want to tell you how impressed I am by your work with this project. I was fascinated by this topic that I have never encountered before and will be using the effort you put into this article as my measuring stick for my own. My sole criticism for your page may be to modify the lead section to better reflect a summary of everything the page encompasses. What I feel is missing from the lead is a brief sentence about the theological controversy. I hope that you find my input and edits as value add. Please ping me back after you check out the updates and feel free to include me on any further ideas moving forward or if you want any additional input. I am happy to take a look.

Regards, Garrettspindell (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)