User talk:Octomom8/sandbox

Comments
Great job on this article, Octomom8. The draft is comprehensive and extensively researched and referenced. I think the part that needs work is the lead section. Ideally the lead section (before the contents box) gives a summary of the contents of the entire article, so people could, be reading the lead, get a sense of what topics are included in the rest of the article. Also, the lead should begin with a sentence that defines the topic - Romani children. Even if it seems obvious to say Romani children are the offspring of the Romani people, etc., that is the encyclopedic style. I encourage you to revise the first sentence and expand the lead section to offer a more comprehensive intro to the article. Otherwise I think the organization, structure, and style of the article is very well done. Cliomania (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Octomom8, you have a great article here. I think that maybe you should change the title “Current Issues” to me it just seems like it would have to be updated all the time in order for this title to stick. Maybe use something that will be able to stick with the section without having to make updates. Mikaylabetton (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Octomom8. This is a really interesting article. As Cliomania noted, enhancing the lead section would enhance this article a little. In the Language and Cognitive Development section you noted that most North American Romani children were fluent in their Romani language in the 1970s. I think it might help if you could find whether or not this is still true now, and if its true in other parts of the world. Overall, its a very informative article. Westcoastbestcoast123 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Octomom8. Great job on the article. Content wise, I think that you're on point with what you're covering. Information is well cited and extensive. The article is comprehensive and makes for a good entry. My suggestion would be to take another skim through for grammar. I saw one point where the word, "god" wasn't capitalized. These seem far and few between, but another run through wouldn't hurt the article. Solid draft thus far. LouisPatterson476 9talk) 14:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)