User talk:Kshen7/sandbox

Overall assessment: Overall a nice start to adding to the article on expert witnesses. It would have been nice for you to show which subsections you have going under what other sections on the main article, just for clarity’s sake. Currently I can only make an educated guess for which section goes under what. The article itself and also your article is also skewed very much to just Europe/United states in terms of scope. Whether or not you choose to delve into other countries is up to you, but may be something to keep in mind. Strengths: Suggestions: Vyeh3 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Clear, concise writing
 * Solid historical references
 * Nice neutral tone
 * Good comparison of differing views
 * Add more citations and sources! Both the main article and your draft are sorely lacking sources.
 * Some minor grammatical issues (most noticeably the apostrophe in United States’)
 * Be wary of generalizations. Some generalizations are ok as long as you have citations to back them up, but because you have none, they don’t seem credible (e.g. the entire “History of Expert Witnesses in the United States” paragraph)
 * An afterthought, but it would be nice if you added hyperlinks to some words to other relevant Wikipedia articles (such as the cases you cite, or companies, etc.)