User talk:Simonebedjean/sandbox

Simonebedjean's Peer Review
This article contribution looks very well-researched and thought out. It's worth noting that you cited your sources everywhere there was a fact, which is impressive considering that I've seen many Wikipedia articles that don't have that. Your contributions are easy to read and the content is neutral. It's a factual article that educates the reader about the government of New York State. I looked at the current Wikipedia article for this topic and it looks like your contributions would provide a lot more detail about the topic.

I did notice that you have a source from the New York Times. Some could say that this news source is biased. I also tried to click on the 3, 4, and 5 citations on your sandbox and the link did not open. I'm assuming it's from a book, so there would be no need for a link or Wikipedia might've done it to your citation on accident. However, your other sources are reliable and the links work. The New York Times source is questionable for me since it can be biased, so that would be the most important thing I'd suggest to change.

There are a couple other minor errors with an easy fix, like the first line of the first paragraph where it says, "ew York's Legislative set up..." It's just a minor spelling error of "New York." The other one is in the last paragraph of your contributions where you list out the processes that happen during the legislative sessions for both houses. You just forgot to add an end parenthesis to "(Senate and Assembly." My article is similar to yours in the fact that it has to do with government (Forensic Linguistics). I'll consider adding facts about the New York State government in my article, but my topic is more general so it might not be the place for it. Anyway, your article contributions are very thorough and well-researched!

Hi Erin, thank you for taking the time out to review my contributions to this article. As you have mentioned there are some easy quick fix issues I have like spelling, I most definitely plan on during a huge grammar check at the end. Also with citation difficulties I will double check because even though i didn't use a DOI, i still did do my citations manually so it still should be working. Thank you so much for all the great compliments, most of my research by the way comes from direct observations in the Assembly, and with that said I tried my very best to write on this subject without any bias and I would also say that I did a great job of thatSimonebedjean (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

so my list of things to edit are 1. Grammar 2. Citations 3. Tidying up the article to make it even better. There is no comment you made that I disagree withSimonebedjean (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)