User talk:Rmufb68/sandbox

Sydney's peer review
The History section of your article seems a little long, I would maybe try to summarize what happened in the first two constitutional conventions of PA and how the push for elected judges failed in those two compared to the later convention. Also, I think you should include the citations where you found the info in your article just to be safe!

In the pennsylvania judicial system section I think you give a really good overview of the system! The only thing is the wording of the second sentence is a little unclear so I would maybe try to reword that. Again I would just put sources in for all of the information.

I think the Judicial elections part of your article is very well written and concise. I also like your advantages and disadvantages to electing judges sections. In both you mention two points, I would suggest making two separate paragraphs for each point in that section just to make it a little easier to read!

Overall I think your article is very well written! You have a lot of good information. Like I said I would just make sure to add in the citations and make a few small changes!

Ethan's peer review
Very impressive use of a box on the right of the page, really adds to the quality of the page. A couple awkward sentences in the opening section. I would advise condensing sections if possible. I believe in text citations are needed. There was an issue with the formatting of the reference section. The use of pictures is also a positive. I really like the style of writing it is very appropriate for an encyclopedia. Very good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonviper7 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Erin's peer review
I think your article looks really great especially with the pictures added. There is a lot of information which is great, too! the only thing I want to mention is this sentence, "The state’s judicial system is one that has both unique features..." I am a bit confused by the "both unique features" I was not sure what exactly you were talking about. Also, the references looks odd. Otherwise, I really like what you did! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelst175 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Funck's Peer review
I thought your Judicial election was loaded with a bunch of great information but you should add intent citations. If the references at the bottom are your resources then you are off to a great start. Nothing seems to have been written word for word in the references or anything I looked up to see if you had plagiarized so Obviously you did not good job! You clearly and concisely Addressed the topic and gave different facts explaining the process. You left your opinions out of this work also adding to its validity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobfunck (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Heather's Peer Review
Your article is very amazing overall. Some of your sections seem to be a little lengthy. I would try to break it down into multiple paragraphs or summarize to make it more readable. Great use of the pictures you added. Also the box at the top right makes the article more readable. Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HR516 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)