User talk:Cvcaudill/sandbox

Nicole's Peer Review for Emotional Eating Hi Cvcaudill,

I think the subject of your article that you are working on is very interesting. I think it is very important that you mention how people thought of emotional as a disease and why it is now considered not to be. It would have been easier to peer review your article if you copied your article to your sandbox and then showed what all needs to be deleted. It is important that people can know what you are thinking about editing so others can see if you should. But overall I really like the comments you made. I like how easy it is to understand the subjeCT. I think you have a clear outline but would recommend not having the edits that you made all in one paragraph. Some information looked like it should be under a different headline. Your sources look reliable also. After reading your edits I do understand the importance of emotional eating. I think you give more concentration on how to define emotional eating. Maybe you should also talk about how different people are affected and how someone could help get past being an emotional eater. The definition of emotional eating is very redundant. Overall great job and can not wait to read it once it is completed. Nicole6794 (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nicole's Peer Review for Emotional Eating
Hi Cvcaudill,

I think the subject of your article that you are working on is very interesting. I think it is very important that you mention how people thought of emotional as a disease and why it is now considered not to be. It would have been easier to peer review your article if you copied your article to your sandbox and then showed what all needs to be deleted. It is important that people can know what you are thinking about editing so others can see if you should. But overall I really like the comments you made. I like how easy it is to understand the subjeCT. I think you have a clear outline but would recommend not having the edits that you made all in one paragraph. Some information looked like it should be under a different headline. Your sources look reliable also. After reading your edits I do understand the importance of emotional eating. I think you give more concentration on how to define emotional eating. Maybe you should also talk about how different people are affected and how someone could help get past being an emotional eater. The definition of emotional eating is very redundant. Overall great job and can not wait to read it once it is completed. Nicole6794 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think adding the whole article in while I edit will help. I don't know if you saw the actual article, but it kind of seems like a mess and needs a lot of deleting of bias. I also think I did a little bit of "word vomit" so organizing it like you mentioned is a good idea. Cvcaudill (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Tori

Cvcaudill Peer Review
By glancing at your article, I noticed Wikipedia mentioned that the article is not written in encyclopedia style. It is good that you can notice biased language so that you can change it and make it into a neutral language. Your edits are really good so far. I like how in the characteristics section you separated the big section and broke it down into two different paragraphs; it flows better that way. Don’t forget to add your reference list with other references and your citations within your sentences — overall great job.Kwhitlow2413 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of my references; I need to organize that. Cvcaudill (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Tori I like your edits, although they were written in a different format. I will say make sure your edits are written in a neutral style. Tmatkins19 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Will you let me know what sounds biased? I need to make certain my edits don't because the article as it is has a LOT of bias. Cvcaudill (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Tori