User talk:Megan rose28/sandbox

You were very thorough with your citations; each sentence includes one if not more sources to support it. Your edits are relevant and contribute towards Wikipedia's suggested content. I especially like your addition to the lead section which clearly states the series' notability today in a concise manner. Your additions are all grammatically correct, but I would proofread the existing content as I saw a few comma errors. I like your addition of the Books section -- the term "series" was rather ambiguous prior to this addition, and the chart you created looks great. Your addition of the analysis section is great and really hits the core of Wikipedia's suggestions. Would you consider moving this to the reception section? While the analyses you mention here certainly belong in the analysis section, some of the sentences, particularly the first three of the section, may belong in reception. That said, the addition flows very well and may not be as effective if split. Maybe consult Professor Fuisz about that. The Theatre Production addition also looks good -- maybe consider renaming to "Adaptations"? Overall, your additions are concise, clear, and well-crafted. Baileybane (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bailey, your citations are meticulous and your edits are relevant and contribute towards Wikipedia's suggested content criteria. I also like the conciseness of your lead, it adheres well to Wikipedia's guidelines. Similar to Bailey again, I noticed that your additions were grammatically correct, however, you do need to fix some comma errors. For example, I may add a comma after "sisters" in the following sentence: “Since he doesn't look like his mother and sisters he thinks that he is a Chihuahua." Additionally, I found the newly-added and/or improved sub-sections "Books," "Analysis," "Reception," and "Theatre Production" to be very appropriate and well-executed. I think you can keep the name "Theatre Production," as you are only discussing a theatrical production of SkippyJon Jones in that sub-section. It's completely u to you. Overall, your contributions flow logically and are clear. Another suggestion I have is to perhaps look over the parallelism when listing examples throughout your sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaimeWalton (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Feedback Response
The main feedback I received from my peer reviewers was regarding comma errors. Additionally, there was the suggestion from one to rename a section to adaptation which the other disagreed with and one though I should move some portion of my analysis to reception. Based on this feedback I will be editing my content for grammar errors and consider adjusting my reception and analysis portions slightly. Megan rose28 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)