User talk:JonGreenberger/sandbox

Peer Review
Just doing my duty as peer reviewer. Seeing as there isn't content here I just looked through the ideas and they look solid. Best of luck with your contribution/if there's anything you want me to look over once you have something let me know! Alexhummels (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jon, also here on peer review duty. I agree with Alex above that the content that you have added thus far to the page seems solid. I think if there's one thing I would recommend thinking about in terms of revisions and restructuring, I would consider possibly moving the second paragraph in the introduction to the article into its own section that discusses the content of the book. While it certainly works in its current position, the way in which this paragraph is structured seems to go a bit more in depth with regards to the meat of the book, which would possibly warrant its own section on the article. Additionally, the first paragraph in the introduction seems to summarize the book, its importance, and its critical reception fairly nicely, so I think it would be perfectly acceptable to let this paragraph exist as the introduction. Let me know if you want anything else in the article to be specifically looked at in the near future! Philibenl (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)