User talk:Etp00/sandbox

peer review
I find this new part of the article pretty clear, and it gives more details about opening injection cites in Phili comparing to the original Wikipedia article. Maybe you could add more citations for the paragraph, if this information supported by more than one source. Also, from the Wiki training I learned they don't recommend direct quotes at all, so it might be a good idea to paraphrase those quotes and write it in your own words. Other than that it's very good contribution for the original article.

Marina

Dan's review
This is a good addition, Emily, one that clearly explains an important legal battle that has the potential to change policy on this issue.

Let me recommend just a few tweaks:
 * Marina made a good point about the use of quotes. What you have would be a great essay paragraph, but Wikipedia generally only tries to use quotes when they're essential. In this case, I think it's better if you summarize the parties' positions.
 * This is another case of writing that's fine in essays, but maybe not in Wikipedia: I think you can condense certain "lexical bundles." So, for instance: "has sight its sights on opening" can simplify to "hopes to open."
 * Marina's right, too, that additional citations (so you're not just relying on one source) would be helpful. For instance, the lawsuits can be found online -- the NYTimes has the link to the US/McSwain suit against Safehouse here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/health/safe-injection-opioids-overdose.html

All told, though, this is a really solid contributions, and with a few additional tweaks it'll be a really excellent one. --Daniel.messier (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)