User talk:Goldsteinmj/sandbox

Peer Review
Overall the article is good, both the content and organizational structure is well done and very deliberate. I think the bibliography section is unnecessary with the reference section also having the same sources with the numbering for the in-text citations. I also would like to see a hyperlink in the Further Reading section rather than just the url link. Klayk (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Very well formatted, cited, and executed. One thing I particularly like about your article is the organization of your references. That level of structuring provides the article with a very developed feel. On the other side of the coin, while the general formatting is currently good, you could better it by including an introduction. Furthermore, the only other critique pertains to some sentence-level errors, which are obviously not that big of a deal. I would be more than happy to go over them with you in person. Haassr (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Cerer- Peer Review
I think that this article is coming along really well. It is a very short/small event, so I do not think that you really need to add much more onto this length-wise other than maybe a few sentences in your Lynching section. You also had plenty of sources for such a small topic, which made the article sound very well informed. I would just polish it up and get it ready to be posted as a real page; however, there really isn't much editing that really needs to be done. Really well written article on a heavy subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer.cerer (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks really good. It's well written and supported with good sources. Good use of internal links. I would just read through it once more, maybe break up some of the longer sentences. Other than that it's really well done. Bankstonad (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)