User talk:CylentRain/sandbox

Article draft feedback
Ah, I see now what you were saying about the too-close paraphrasing! Yes, since you've found a source (and possibly the same source a previous editor/editors used) that allows you to improve on the current phrasing and make it less similar to the existing source, this can be a good opportunity to improve the article. With something like this, you will want to look at specific language and phrasing structures in the Wikipedia material, determine what exactly the too-close paraphrase pieces are, and focus on just improving the paraphrase work in those small sections (this might mean re-working sentences or just re-thinking phrases within sentences. It probably won't mean re-phrasing entire paragraphs).

For the original vs. paraphrased sections you've added here, I'm curious where in the article you plan to incorporate this information. It seems to partially duplicate the current "blade" section, which I see you've also paraphrased separately. How do these three versions of this information integrate into a single section of the article?

I'm also curious whether you've been able to find any new information that would expand the article beyond the information already in it. This may not mean adding an entirely new section, but might mean adding paragraphs of new information into existing sections.

Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to reading your polished additions to this article! Nicoleccc (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Article evaluation feedback
You give a clear high-level evaluation of this article here, and briefly address the core content of each of the slides in the exercise. I am left curious what you found in the article that was outdated, or if you have an example of where language was overly technical, or if you explored any of the reference links (and what about them needs to be checked? I'm not sure what that phrase means in this context). Digging just a little deeper into specific examples would serve you well going forward into work on an article you'll improve. The range of discussion in the talk page is interesting, and you make a good specific note pointing out the bot activity there. Nicoleccc (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)