User talk:Jaredgoz/sandbox

Good job! Tcravy (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Tcravy (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I liked the way that you begins your paragraph using Wikipedia links to the different platforms that music can be accessed. I think you should expand more talking about social identity and personality, but later in the statement using examples straightened your argument. Maybe you should consider using more external links and try to avoid bullet points (Wikipedia don't like this very much).Rafamatalon1234 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The content is really clear and well organized. I liked the way how you listed down the factors.Koko413 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

your sentence structure and content is really strong and clear. everything you wrote is also very fact driven which is good. I think you should stay away from the list and maybe expand a little more on the topic overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wohlina (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I liked the way you formatted your paragraph by describing different types of music and then relating it to characteristics people hold (personality types) ("rebel", "laidback", etc.) One thing that I would suggest is expanding more/making more clear on whether it is personality or social influence that creates music preference. Great work on everything! Fariha34 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well organized and good sentence structures and use of neutral language. Fact driven as well, with no excessive use of words. --Jasonkung22 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Jasonkung22

Good job! I have a couple of really small edits: - In the first sentence, delete the comma after "broader," and "wider range" doesn't need a dash. - Make sure you have agreement--> "there are five main factors that exist that underly music preferences that ARE genre-free, and REFLECT emotional/affective responses." -Capitalize "a" in number 4! For consistency :) This is such an interesting topic, and you explain it super clearly! Isamouse79 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC) I like the way you showing the fact. And this is a great work with good content and great detail. That will be better if you could add more content or examples.Samuelzhao000005 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Samuelzhao000005

I very much enjoyed reading this. I remember when I first got Spotify, my knowledge of music broadened, as I started listening to new genres. I would like to know more information on the 5 subcategories, that you have provided.Charlier118 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your sentence structure is very strong and it is good that it is fact driven. I also think the content is very useful and you provide good details. However, maybe instead of doing a list just incorporate the information into the paragraph. Overall this page looks really good! Isabelleshegog (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Isabelle

I think this is a nice start but you definitely need to expand upon the ideas to create a more complete article.SocksOfDeath (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Great job! I liked your work and how you used a lot of hyperlinks. Maybe you can expand the topic a little more and give us more information and details.ChristalCao (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Great job! The organization is easy to follow and clear. Some minor changes that need to be made are to start the fourth bullet point with a capital letter and I think you meant to write "and" instead of "a" after smooth in the first bullet pointLorenaramirezl (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Good job! Maybe expand more on music accessibility, like explaining the rise of platforms like Spotify and others! Sydneycurrie5 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)