User talk:Mcb182/sandbox

Peer Review Comments 11/4
What does the article (or section) do well?

I think this page does a perfect job of conveying necessary information in a neutral way. You focus on case details, describing standards, and citing statistics but not in an argumentative way, simply a factual manner. The list of tests for whether or not a defendant can be deemed competent was a particularly stand out addition to this piece that I think it benefits from greatly.

What changes would you suggest overall?

Try formatting the page with a few sub-headings. Additionally, capitalize you titles.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

I think more than anything the page could just benefit from a separation of topics. CST is relatively specific but differentiating between when you're talking about cases that set precedents and psychological evaluations might be helpful for people looking for very very specific information.

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know! Amyc29 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely I think this is a really good metric for someone like me who has a bad habit of adding too much flare to his writing. I will be using this as a helpful reference.

Peer Review Comments 11/4
What does the article (or section) do well?

''Your piece does an excellent job of maintaining a neutral tone, is very thorough/information rich, and is worded concisely and effectively. The information density is definitely a strength, but could benefit from division by subheadings.''

What changes would you suggest overall?


 * 1) Capitalize the title.
 * 2) Maybe put what CST stands for in parentheses after introducing the acronym for the first time.
 * 3) Consider spelling out out 2/3 or add 's?
 * 4) Capitalize the numbered list elements.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

Subdivide with headings to make the information more accessible and organized.

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own?

You're doing a good job of linking between sources/other Wikipedia articles, which is something I definitely need to work on. Yagabab (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Overall, really solid work here. A few minor things: In this sentence, "competency to stand trial depends only on the defendants..." make sure to add an apostrophe. Also, if there are key phrases (like "presumption of innocence") that could be linked within Wikipedia, I would recommend doing that. Good job keeping tone neutral! If you haven't already, be sure to post on the original article's talk page before moving your work over. Please let me know if you have any questions! Amyc29 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)