User talk:Ericamkan/sandbox

This looks interesting. . .but can you find another 3 or 4 reliable, objective sources?

feedback
Looks interesting. . but, again, you'll need to find four or five reliable, objective, independent sources to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

sourcing
Can you provide the bibliographic info for your sources, rather than just Ebsco links etc.? Grazie Profhanley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer evaluation
Hello ericamkan, I really enjoyed your article and thought it was quite interesting. I think its pretty chill that closed group on Facebook has over 300,000 members. I also really appreciated how you maintained an objective tone throughout the article and it seemed very well researched. I think my only problem is that it could go a little more in depth. I was just a little confused by whether the page is meant to be a comedy page filled with memes and jokes from the Asian dating community or a place for people to meet or discuss their dating experiences. Maybe a few more sections within the article that explain the different facets of the group would be cool too. However I really enjoyed your essay and I think that you have an interesting topic and you are doing a great job of remaining objective, your article really read like a Wikipedia page. Thanks and I hope my peer evaluation helps :D. Sincerely, Dominador495 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominador495 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Zaira Q. Peer Review
Hi Ericamkan, your wikipedia article seems very interesting. Here is some feedback that I hope you will find helpful LEAD The lead is quite informational and well written. Something I struggled with when writing my article was which voice to use when writing the article. I.E, your lead reads “ SAD is a social network group that allows one to feel empowered…” to maintain neutrality and separation between you and the article it might be helpful to rephrase that. Otherwise, I think the lead provides a concise idea of what this facebook group is. STRUCTURE Currently, your sections are well organized but relatively short. I see a bunch of sources but I’m not really seeing where you have used them. What you have so far seems great; I am looking forward to seeing you add a little more information. My biggest concern would be finding reliable sources about a Facebook group. I know I had quite a bit of trouble finding sources for my article because they are mostly Instagram accounts with followers. I am not really sure what other sections you can add but I am left feeling wanting more information. BALANCE/NEUTRALITY From what I have read so far, you do an excellent job remaining objective and informational. SOURCING This is the area where I feel you can use the most improvement. I can see you have sources and perhaps you plan on using them when you further develop your article. But as of right now, I can’t really tell how your articles are working with your article. Also, I noticed that the page assigned to you is unrelated to your article topic. Have you shifted your focus to SAD? Or Dorian? Lastly, are your sources mentioning SAD specifically? I read the article from the Atlantic and I think it’s a great piece. The two sfsu database articles don’t seem to focus on the SAD group but more of the dating concepts. It would be helpful to your article to find more articles that mention this group. Overall, you have a great start to your article. With a little more sourcing and information, I think you can make this topic work. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarroyo1 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting closer
I'm not sure want you want to do with the "sources" section - - as some of this is citations but others seem to be adding content. Also, not sure about some of the writing, for instance: "experiencing empathy for pain points in the Asian community." I don't know exactly what that means. What is your model page? Finding one would be very helpful, even necessary. Profhanley (talk)