User talk:Ofult1/sandbox

Peer Review
1) After reviewing Olivia's edits it seems like that her edits are not biased and that everything is neutral.

2) There are sufficient changes made in the article that will allow it to be more credible for other readers wanting to use the article.

3) After going over her citations and sources it seems that they are all credible and it is the right fit for wikipedia.

4) The language and tone for the article edits are constructed in a way that allows the reader to understand clearly what is being said in the article.

5) She understands the assignment perfectly but there is only two out of three sources posted on her sandbox page. It was mentioned that she will have the third citation for the assignment on time. All edits have a citation for them.

Cole's Peer Review

1.) The articles used to change/add edits did not seem to be neutral as they focused on personal experiences with paranormal activity.

2.) The changes/additions both seem to essential as they describe signs that would alert others and themselves of demonic possession. The second edit talks about exorcism and how it relates to demonic possession.

3.) The citations and sources come from a book and website that talk about personal experiences concerning demonic possession.

4.) The language, tone, and clarity all seems clear as they talk about signs of demonic possession and how exorcism relates to the topic.

5.) These edits are good and follow the guidelines if you consider the second edit in two parts. If not you should add another edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmasl1 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
I will take all these comments and use them to change my edits. I will make sure my research is clear and accurate. I will make sure to make sure there is less of a bias. Also make all of my edits provide the outcome response of the article to be what I hope for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofult1 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)