User talk:Emmyminer/sandbox

Peer Review: By Elisa RS

1. The lead paragraph was great. it gave a thorough background without overwhelming the reader. All of it was informative and relevant. There is not much information in the article but whatever there is, it's very impactful and important. 2. Changes include adding more content, especially for sections such as programs. That section was a little hard to understand because I didn't understand what the Woodson museum was and there weren't any sources attached to it. Most of the sections need more information and would help the reader understand the museum. Additions might include the museum and recent events or outreach in the community. Details like permanent exhibits or special programs could help differentiate it from others. Also, who founded it? What year was it founded? 3. Most important thing to improve article is add more information and current news and exhibits. Visiting the place might be helpful to gain a better understanding of current operations and programs. 4. The Florida Holocaust Museum is also a Wiki page and it includes news, events, programs, and exhibits. It might be helpful to look at it because it has a strong founders and museum section. Signed ElisaElisa3796 (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Austin B

1. Interesting information on museum founder. More of his background and achievements would strengthen the article. 2. A description of the exhibits in the museum would help the article, perhaps check newspapers as sources. 3. Finding information on exhibits will probably be the most important thing. Details of life of the founder would also be helpful 4. I found a lot of coverage of museum exhibits in newspapers, use them as a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabouche (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Jennifer M

1. A recurring issue with the article is a lack of citations for a lot of the information. Some of it comes off as trying to persuade the reader of a certain position, particularly in the Invasion section. I feel the opening paragraph sounds a bit strange and seems forced with information immediately. The Causality section could have more added in it, or could be added to the Aftermath section. 2.Your sandbox addressed most of the problems, and more, that I found with the article! The additional information added to some sections clarified the information already put in. Jlmohn (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

These edits are very well researched and well worded. I would look to add more citations and break down the information a little better. I agree with Professor Shedden, some of the sentences seem a bit awkward. Maybe look to change the wording around a little bit? Your edits look great though! Just make sure everything is cited! :) Mbmcginn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)