User talk:Peanutbutter345/sandbox

Still good, but should become article format soon--RJBazell (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

TaylorHabb's Peer Review
Excellent job and good content added. The sources that have been added are solid as well. Suggestions: make sure to properly enter the citation links when changing the actual article on the mainspace; consider adding the title/detail about the unnamed and discontinued website; watch repetition (for example, in last paragraph, "never" is used two time in one sentence); break up the article into various sections (examples: intro, effectiveness, Harvard's input, etc.) TaylorHabb (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Another quick suggestion: consider adding links throughout your article that lead to other Wikipedia articles. TaylorHabb (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Helen's Peer Review
This is very informative and well written. You did a great job of keeping the text neutral even though I know you have personal knowledge of the subject. The chronological organization is positive. Your sources are reliable. As a suggestion, you might want to break the article up a bit when you format it for the main space. For example, maybe you could break the passage up by the law being discussed. This would cause the writing to seem a bit less like a narrative. Also, just read through it one more time because there is a grammatical error (it instead of its) in the second to last paragraph. Overall, great article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AddisonBlacksmith (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)