User talk:MRivera17/sandbox

Karla's peer review
Lead Section: The beginning of your article contribution was very straightforward and factual. It gave me a sense of what the article was going to be about. Clear Structure: Your article contribution is organized chronologically which made it very easy to understand and follow through. Facts flow one after another very smoothly. Balanced Coverage: There is enough coverage for each fact/point you include. Neutral Content: There is a clear reflection of various aspects of this topic. The following sentence, "A country must see and develop an appreciation for how scholars, policy makers and civilians in various regions of the nation understand the impacts of political, social and economic borders.", doesn't seem completely neutral. I would suggest removing the word "must" as it makes it sound like that is the only way a country can achieve the goal of making reasonable decisions. Reliable Sources: Most, if not all, of your sources came from a reliable source. I was not able to access your first source, but I am pretty sure that can be fixed.

Lopck12 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Lopck12

Thank you for the constructive remarks. I went back to fix the first reference, turns out I missed the last number in the URL. I also went back and rephrased the the statement on developing appreciation for the understanding of such boarders and their impact on society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRivera17 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)