User talk:Jasmair/sandbox

Peer Review Hi, Jas! I think you are making good progress on your article; however, the one paragraph isn’t a lot to go off of. Your writing is really clear and well-composed. I think this paragraph would benefit from being separated a bit. Right now, it feels as though the five points are mashed together for one continuous statement.

With that being said, the information provide maintains neutrality and is based in fact which is great! I would love to learn more about this topic through other sources and seeing what else you come up with. Keep going! Great start! Emileehelm (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Khuynh96's Peer Review
Overall, your content is off to a good start. It's important to keep in mind to avoid your own opinion in this. I feel like there are better wording for "it is important to keep in mind." I think it is beneficial for this article to have more references and hyperlinks that would make the article stronger. I'm unclear which direction you want to take this article towards, and how you would build the page up. There are good materials and case studies that would support your article.

Keep up the good work so far. Looking forward to see the final product! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuynh96 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on article draft
Hi , You got some thoughtful feedback from your peer reviewers, but I would just say that I am less concerned about neutrality. Neutrality on Wikipedia doesn't have to mean that every statement is neutral, only that positive and negative statements are both included and are in balance. See WP:NOP for more on the neturality policy.

Overall, it seems like you're off to a good start, but I do agree with Emileehelm that you could do more to develop this article section. One thing think could be particularly important is to name the thinkers who say these are the 5 decision making styles. It then might be interesting to compare this approach to categorizing decision making to other conceptualizations. You might try to provide examples of each decision making type.

Keep up the good work! Groceryheist (talk)


 * Hey, thank you for the feedback. I've considered what my peers said and what you had to say as well and made edits to my article accordingly. Let me know if my example needs to be more clear. Thank you! Jasmair (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation Feedback
I have some comments on your article evaluation. Overall, you did a good and thorough job evaluating this article and your work reflects a developing understanding of Wikipedia.

Nice job :) Groceryheist (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Broken wikilinks aren't usually considered a problem unless the linked subjects are not meet the notability criteria for inclusion on the encyclopedia.  They are often added as placeholders for a future when the articles have been created.
 * Good job noting that some of the sources were not accessible. This is a common problem that is difficult to address.


 * Hey Nate, thanks for letting me know. I will keep that in mind that they are used as placeholders. This is another resource that can now potentially help me in selecting what to edit or write about for our project. Jasmair (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)