User talk:Fmega2/sandbox

Isaac's peer review
The paragraph is well written. And the structure is in a similar fashion to the original. His edits brought more context and explanation to the article. However, there is no citations or references to any of the information provided so there is very little to talk about here.

I think there is a problem with the tense in what you have written as I believe (and im not completely sure about this ) using a third-person singular simple present indicative form of a word like "argues" and " writes " (taken from his edits ) don't match the style of writing / tense that is in the original Wikipedia works. (im not completely sure )

overall the writing and information are good but with no citations to anything, there is a limit of what a review would be.

Nadine's Peer Review
First paragraph: Good use of chronological order. Second paragraph: run on sentence, should break into two starting with "justice kavanaugh" then something along lines of "this problem can also be seen in cases such as:..."? Run on sentence, should break into "private sector can be defined as...by..." then add information on government organization? Rest of paragraph is a run on and should be broken into separate parts or parts removed or rewritten. Should cite after every sentence.

Dan's review
Overall, Peter, this looks like a helpful expansion of what was previously sort of a stub of a Wikipedia article. You bring in useful and clarifying additional context about the case and the majority and dissenting opinions in a way that's generally clear and clean.

I agree with Isaac's point that it needs citations -- as I'm sure you were already aware. Nadine points out that some of the sentences in the second section read a bit long, which I agree with. They're not technically run-ons, but they don't have the direct crispness of Wikipedia language. (I think that most Wikipedia articles start directly with the main clause; they don't start with a modifying dependent clause as you do with "Citing cases such as ...") For what it's worth, this is an example of an article about Supreme Court case that's been ranked "featured article" (in other words, top quality): Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke You don't have to aim that high, of course, but it might be helpful to look at the language of that article as a model.

That said, you're doing a great job of making sense of what could otherwise be pretty confusing stuff, and I think this'll ultimately become a really beneficial contribution to Wikipedia. Daniel.messier (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)