User talk:Revolutionary27/sandbox

Week 2
Great job with this week's assignment. I loved your answers on the content gap: great job providing examples and being thorough with your responses. What is more, you did a great job evaluating the Tilikum page. It seems that articles on sensitive topics definitely tend to sway in one direction or another. Well done this week. Alfgarciamora (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Professor Garcia. Thank you very much for your kind comments, I hope to keep up the good work. :) -Revolutionary27 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Week 5
You continue to impress me, Isabella! Amazing job for this week. Absolutely amazing. Well done =) Alfgarciamora (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Week 8
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful work, !!! You have done an EXCEPTIONAL job here! I am so impressed of your work and proud of you. Consider yourself done with the research on this page and wrapped up with almost all of the assignments. Well done. You have done such a great job. =) Alfgarciamora (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Isabella, Incredible work so far on an article with little information to go on. Your compilation of sources is extensive which is very impressive as I understand your character has little information about him available. I agree with your decision to leave the lead section alone, it is brief but to the point. The only suggestion I would make is to make sure in "The Napoleonic Code" section you draw the importance and spreading of the code back to Cambaceres because as it stands now the connection is not solidified. I believe your plan to restructure the article and its section is great and will contribute to the flow of the article. I would also advise you heed the lack of sources for verification that the article has flagged as of right now, this will need some serous editing so that the article can be seen as reliable. Finally, also take a look at the Talk page as many contributors have added really useful information, especially about the homosexuality section and someone even provides a source (Michael Sibalis) that you can use to your advantage. Overall, an impressive start to a large project. Good luck! Nikkiroe7879 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the great advice, Nikki! I'll definitely look more into the Napoleonic Code section to make sure that his connection to the document is know. I'll also look more into the talk page of the article to see what suggestions previous writers might have, some of them are even authors of the books that I have from the library. Again, thank you so much for all of the suggestions you've given me; they will certainly make a better final draft. :) -Revolutionary27 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft Feedback
Hi! I took a quick look at the changes you've drafted, and it looks reasonable to me. The one thing that I can suggest at this point is to watch out for language that is too colloquial, like this "Napoleon is recorded as making a number of jokes on the subject but didn't seem to mind." That's a little off from the standard Wikipedia style. I encourage you to start making your changes in mainspace as soon as you can.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll make the changes right away! -Revolutionary27 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)