User talk:RossKuj/sandbox

Peer Review
Jack's Evaluation: I think what you have added is really well-sourced, for almost every sentence you added is cited, in addition to the information you have retroactively added in the Lead section. I do think that at times your language could be a little more concise or succinct so the information is a little easier to understand, but everything you have added does help me understand the philosophy behind various ethnic studies. However, I was wondering why you only wrote about two types of ethnic studies in the Schools of Thought section. It may be intentional, and if it is I guess I would just add something that explains how African-American Studies and Native Indian Studies encapsulate the Schools of Thought in Ethic Studies. In addition, writing the same amount for the Native Indian Studies as you did for the African American Studies would be very helpful too, because the African American studies paragraph is really comprehensive and in-depth. Other than that I think these are really helpful additions to the article.Tjc81 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Caitlin’s Peer Review: Plain and concise language is employed in these additions. The last sentence in the first paragraph under the “Schools of Thought” section should be changed as to flow better with the rest of the paragraph. Maybe add transition wording, or add in something about intersectionality and how the branches of ethnic studies relate. Each sentence conveys a factual claim. Each sentence is cited. There are some instances within the paragraph concerning African-American studies, where the perception of how established or esteemed programs are, is not attributed to anyone. I do see that these sentences are sourced from encyclopedias so the information may have not been originally attributed to anyone. Thus, these edits or additions of signal phrases are up to you, I just wanted to make note of them. Aside from the first sentence added at the end of the first paragraph under the “Schools of Thought” section, the rest of the additions flow and are easy to follow. I do not believe any additional information or sources are needed to understand the drafted material. Regarding neutrality, make sure to either attribute charged words to someone or change them to better reflect a stance of neutrality. Overall, fantastic work. These additions will be very helpful in helping future readers to understand the schools of thought within Ethnic studies.

Peer Review
Aidans Evaluation: Ross's added content to the School of Though section is very well-organized and contains thought out factual information. I appreciate the adding of the other forms and schools of Ethnic studies like African American studies and Asian American studies. it shows throughout his information and demeanor within his writing that he took the time to and factual and reliable sources to input the necessary and relevant information in introducing the variety of schools. I do wonder though if you intend to continue adding information to all of the topics and schools you mentioned rather than just the two asian and African American. regardless, the information you added for African American studies is very well addressed and I hope you continue to add that to the other schools of thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanrocha (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)