User talk:Rj-2198/New Sandbox

This article is very informative! There are a few grammatical errors throughout the section, but these can easily be fixed. I especially like the organizations section. This along with the religious organizations section are the best written sections in my opinion. Throughout these portions, the sections remained concise, unbiased, and relevant. The unbiased tone throughout is definitely the strongest aspect. I appreciated that even when reviewing the court documents, the tone remained neutral as to not sway the readers in either direction. As a student in this class, it can be really easy to slip in your own opinion, even accidentally. It was very informative and fact-based. Your sources are also incredibly reliable and multiple. There are a few places where citation is unclear, such as the summary at the beginning. Be sure that these are evident in this section and at the section titles Religious Organizations. In this latter section, also be sure to clarify whether any links in the parenthesis are meant to act as hyperlinks to forward people to these websites or if they’re meant to act as citations instead. These citation confusions were probably the biggest thing that stood out to me. Be sure that throughout the essay, you add these citations as you go. I generally had a hard time telling which information came from which source. In addition, under the Religious Organizations topic, I felt that it was unnecessary to include states that did not have websites independent from the parent RCRC. I felt like this got very repetitive in cases where it was not needed. Instead, you might want to include only the states that have independent FaceBook groups or websites. This way, these certain states stick out more to those who are looking for them. You could also just include a short list of these states at the end should you still want to list them (I.E.: “The following states do not have an independent website separate from the parent RCRC: ….”). I feel like this was very well written, and most of my comments were either related to grammar or sentence structure. Some sentences were wordy or unclear in their structure, so I was sure to mark any such place in the Google Document. There were a few places in which pronouns (specifically “they”) were used very often in a way that was confusing to read in terms of trying to associate actions with the respective groups/people/nouns that the pronouns referred to. There were also some sentences that had several dependent clauses per sentence that were ordered in a confusing way, so I tried to add suggestions to alleviate any confusion. I think the big positive behind this article was how straightforward and concise it is, so these sections really stick out. Fixing this should allow for the article to have a continuous flow throughout. Overall, I think this is a very solid paper! Again, most of the issues I saw I feel like could’ve been easily overlooked, like grammar or sentence structure. A lot of these little errors happened through the whole paper, so it looks like a lot more than it is. I think that with a few edits, you will have a perfect paper! Word Count: 536 Words Meganchong (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Megan Chong