User talk:JoFraDe/sandbox

Evans Civ Comment
This is an overall well written article, but there are some things that I personally would be cautious of. I think the Wikipedia citation policy prefers citing each sentence individually rather than citing one time at the end of a paragraph. I am also unsure whether it is appropriate to categorize a shared argument in a collection of essays as a theme. I also recommend restructuring the syntax in the court case section a bit. Your writing suggests that the judge himself leveraged the case against Russell rather than Kay. RWakely99 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Tim Song Comment
Honestly this Wikipedia page is pretty good and I can't really find many problems with it. I am just wondering that maybe you could put a picture or two, if possible, on the page so that the reader can better understand the scene of the court case, etc. Besides, when you cite the book, could you also put in the exact page numbers for the according passages that you cited? Maybe curious readers can find them better that way. Fakeroute (talk) 4:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
I like the format of the article and think the information is valuable. I do think it would be good to beef up one of the sections somehow as they all seem somewhat brief and leave me wanting to know more. I do understand that you only have to contribute 500 words and that you're starting an article from scratch, so I understand. Regardless, I think this is good and serves as a good starting point for future improvements. Haveagooddavis (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Evans Civ Comment (Final)
You write very clearly, and this is a good choice for an article! If you're looking to round out the article a little bit more, maybe information on how membership and publication worked within the society? Or include more famous members of the society? I think what you have now is pretty great, though. Maybe just add citations to the sentences that are currently left uncited. RWakely99 (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
An interesting and well written article! I think it would be helpful to provide more context to your claim that the academy's journal was psuedo-scientific. Is this a modern understanding of the journal or something people believed at the time of its publishing? Who made these claims and are there any particular characters involved you could expand on? Megan Reyna (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)