User talk:Dhrunil9/sandbox

Emily Norwood Peer Review: From what I read you're having some hang ups so do not feel alone because I am struggling with find relevant sources that pertain to my article. I think you have formulated a great addition from what i read in your sandbox and i am ready to see this go further. EmilyNorwood (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi, great article and I appreciate your honesty. When I was reading your summary I felt like I was actually talking to you because of the flow, structure, and tone. You voiced your opinions and even stated areas the article lacked in, which is great. I would like to see some statistics and demographics about who typically get diagnosed with this condition. But overall great summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguellee15 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the peer review. I enjoyed reading what you wrote. I think I have a way of incorporating your ideas about statistics and demographics into the final stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhrunil9 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Shelby Wallace- Peer Review
Hello, I think you've got some great ideas. I was especially interested in your potential contribution regarding violence associated with playing violent video games. I think that would be a great topic to elaborate on since it is so relevant to our generation and has been in the media so much when discussing school shootings. Since you have to maintain a neutral stance on Wikipedia you might consider referencing research studies from opposing viewpoints on the subject. On another note, I wonder why you need to include more secondary literature since it is essentially condensed primary literature? I would think that the more primary support you have the better? Maybe secondary literature is easier to read and understand for those interested in following up on the sources? Shelbyw8 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Shelbyw8, 21 February 2019

Shelby, thank you for the comments. The secondary literature suggestion came from another user but I could see where it would be beneficial to include the other view point as well! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhrunil9 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)