User talk:Jonathan Pallister/sandbox

When it came to the first source I edited called social media giving day, there were some obvious punctuation errors I had to go in and edit. Examples of this taking place were capitalization, sentence simplifying, or misplaced commas. These were not major issues by any means. The major issue I found in the article was the credibility of the sources they used, whoever set this up initially. It seems that Givver.com from what I know isn't a popular source when it comes to social media. I could be wrong but there are plenty of other credible sources that could potentially work better on this page. Besides credibility, it seemed like there was lack of information on different aspects the topic at hand. Many sections were short and I feel as though more sources or information could be added to the page.

When reviewing the second article, it far surpassed the first page I had viewed and edited. The article I reviewed was entitled Cause Marketing. The number of credible sources was a lot more ensuring compared to the first page I had looked at. Also, there were little to no punctual errors I could locate when reviewing this page at hand. There was a contents section which helped make it easier to navigate the page entirely instead of having to scroll through every section. A lot more time and detail has been put into this page and the references are at a very high number of 28 which is very promising. There are tags placed throughout tied to similar words or ideas that will jump you to familiar pages which tie into the idea of Cause Marketing. In full, the page is professionally done are there is little to no changes I would make personally. I already had an idea of what Cause Marketing was before I looked at this page so it was nice to refresh myself with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Pallister (talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)