User talk:Kkait9/sandbox

Peer Review for Buddhist Studies.
Hi Kaitlyn, I think the notes you made for the editing plan are a good starting point and the information that you want to edit is on point to what the article requires. The use of quotations in any Wiki page from what I understood should be minimal if at all and the article as it stands does require this correction since it quotes entire passages of Prebish's work. I think the edit that you made in the sandbox does a great job at putting that first section (Relationship to Contemporary Buddhism) into the more concise form required for encyclopedic information, however I do think the introduction that brings up Prebish and then paraphrasing the work could omit his personal information as a scholar and just be included as a reference at the end of your contribution and his paraphrase which I believe you do anyway. I also see that you added more references with Smith's work, and I think he's a great source since he's an authority. Referencing more than one of his work's is good for the content, however with further editing or adding to the article, it may give the impression that the article relies too heavily on once source. That includes Novak since he also ties his writing to Smith's work. I understand Buddhist studies is a very broad topic and eventually you could include a huge list of sources, so in this aspect I agree with you that the topic may need to be merged with the Wiki project to better brainstorm with more people on that talk page. Overall I liked the edits that you made in getting rid of the huge quotes and summarized the ideas better according to Wiki guidelines. I also liked how you organized the planning to edit in your sandbox which I now wish I would have done better for my own article. Good work. Crumbsnstuff (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Alejandro Gonzalez

Peer Review for Buddhist Studies
I think that overall your plans for the changes for the page are quite thorough and could really add to the educational value to the page. One of the few things I would recommend would be to perhaps take out some of the quotations from the article and replace them with data directly from the source. Also I think using Huston Smith as a source is a good idea due to his high academic standing. You have the groundwork to really improve this article and make it truly great. Good luck! Tylergerlach (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)