User talk:DorcasCh/sandbox

Look that each part of the article has valid sources. For example, a not valid source is using a blog as reference or any website that does not use credible sources. Having large blocks is not good either. You cannot rely only in one source to give information; instead, you need to have multiple sources to support your thesis or topic. You also need to ensure that the sources given are correct. Many can misinterpret and give false information on the article. This goes along with checking for plagiarism because it is possible to find information where the paraphrasing is not correct or where the text is exactly a word-by-word copy from the source. The article has to be understandable. You have to write the information in a way that is simple for everyone to understand since it can be a new topic for people. Finally, the article has to be narrow. it has to have the main points, and be careful with implementing new topics in one article since it is easy to get to write non-related topics that you think are related to the main topic.

Peer-Review Edit
Positive comment: The lead section is easy to understand and written nicely.I found the reference to oxytocin and ethnocentrism interesting.

Constructive criticism:

The first paragraph in Origins of the concept and its study section has a lot of information that correlates to the rest of the other sections in the article. Because of this simplifying that first paragraph into simpler words would be better.

The Anthropology section needs more elaboration, explain the quote.

For the Biology and evolutionary theory section explaining that in simpler terms would make it easier to understand.

Grammar or punctuation editing: In the anthropology section, in the last paragraph capitalize the ‘I’ in the word “it” ‘W’ in the word “with”.

Juniebug77 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)