User talk:Gonzalm6/sandbox

Hello!, I do like the information you added and I assume that the bolded part is your contribution? It does seem like useful information, however describing how well the author deciphers information is not really (correct me if im wrong!:) conducive for a Wikipedia article. That is more of a book report summary in which it's interpretation is subjective. I would also suggest using more sources as the bolded wording only references one author. If you could go back and find the same information by a different author just so it doesn't seem as biased or single sourced, that would be great! Cheers! Joaquinjiron (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Santosde Ed-review
There was lot information and it was not very easy to follow. However your addition to the article helped to make it more clear and easy to understand. I thought that your information about how there are more negatives or reasons not to read "The Population Bomb" was interesting but confusing because the list of reasons was not easily found. I was not able to find links to the sources that you specifically listed, but overall great job with the detailed information that you added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosde (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you, I do see how it was confusing. That's my fault I was just throwing in ideas and didn't notice I wasn't going on chronological order.