User talk:Jennifert02/sandbox

Claudias's Peer Review
Hi!

The information on this article is interesting and a reader can benefit but there are a few things that can be edited. Your structure is easy to read and understand where things are. Although I do believe that highlighting what you added would've also been easier so I could read exactly what you added. In the original article I think in the second paragraph where it talks about China, I think it could be taken out because it's a random fact. The beginning of every article needs to be a strong source and summarize what the rest of the article is going to be about. The structure of the article is something that needs editing because it may be confusing to the reader. Those were some of the things I saw that needed the most editing, but other than that you did a good job. Cgome166 (talk)

Prof R Feedback
your research is evident...the reorganizing of the article was a smart move (the original version is quite confusing)...the section on "riders" which is where you are showcasing "business ethics" needs some tweaking--be more neutral in tone and less verbose (e.g., "riders who deliver...are considered independent contractors not employees because..."

unclear what you mean about Australian riders--shouldn't they be considered employees based on what you're saying? the security and insurance bit is awkward and should be tied in better to the section  Micalva (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)