User talk:Sofi rromero/sandbox

Yeny's Review:
Strengths of Edits and Additions Made:

You did great work and I think this article once done will be helpful. The added definition of guns was great as it gives people a better vision of the topic at hand. I most appreciated the addition of the breakdown of each nations requirements for owning a gun. I wouldn't remove any of the added elements with the exception of "buy gun". Links to references work properly, but there are two citations that may need revision. Article feel well balanced and planned out.

Suggested Changes

Overall, try to avoid using "we", "us", etc. because it positions you to sound for or against they topic (which is to be avoided). If you re-read and change words around to maintain neutrality it will be a solid piece. I would remove the "buy gun" portion from the list of regulation from each state. This adds a bit of sarcastic undertone and feel redundant. There are sections that could use additional information. For example, what happened in Australia after they had everyone sell their guns to the government. Are there articles that detail/support citizen reaction, actions, protests, etc. I felt like the article did feel one sided. Adding more information regarding the counterparts could help maintain balance.

Most Significant Change

Help make information directly linked to references by adding in line citations. This adds to reliability and helps make it easier to identify proper paraphrasing/fact checking. Make sure that you can identify words that tend to sound judgmental and opinionated. It helps to read the article out loud.

Ymarq013 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Transferable Ideas

It helped to read your article and remind myself how hard it is to remain neutral. I will try and follow my own advice and ready my article out loud. I liked the addition of fun facts, but in ways my article already has that.

Sherilene's Peer Review of Sofia's Edits
1. Strengths Of Edits and Additions To Article
 * Additions to article include procedures and regulations various countries including, New Zealand, the United States of America, Japan, and Mexico follow to address the concept of gun control.
 * Additions by editor include a definition of a fire arm, semi-automatic firearm, and an automatic firearm. This is an important addition because the original article did go directly into the definition of gun control and didn't address differentiate between the type of firearms under discussion.
 * Additions have very clear and bold sub-headings. The headings are clear and organized.
 * The bullets the editor used to present the regulations different countries use to address gun control makes it easy to read the information.
 * Significant use of references which increases the credibility of the information presented.
 * In general section lengths seems equal to the importance of the article, with a few exceptions.
 * No sections in the article seems of topic or unnecessary. Everything is relevant to the topic, "Gun Control."
 * The article reflects more than one perspective. At "Gun Facts & Misconceptions" editor gives two perspectives, one that supports background checks as a potential aid for gun control and one that says there is a flaw in this statement.
 * Author has a balance between positive and negative information. Refers to the positive information related to gun control laws but also to the negative information related to not implementing these laws.
 * Most statements are connected to reliable sources, with one exception.

'''2. Suggested changes author/editor could make to article
 * Instead of just creating sub-headings, the editor could created headings with sub-headings underneath it. For example, "Regulations to Attain a Firearm in Different Countries" could he a heading with "New Zealand, United States of America, Japan, and Mexico" as sub-headings under this heading. At the moment both "Regulations to Attain Firearms in Different Countries" and the countries the editor refer to are sub-headings. This might confuse the reader as it might appear that the countries and the regulations they use to control gun control might seem as separate from the sub-heading "Regulations to Attain Firearms in Different Countries." By creating headings with sub-headings instead of just sub-headings for everything the reader will have a clearer idea of when an new section or topic starts.
 * Author/editor could create a heading above the definitions of fire arm, semi-automatic firearm and, automatic firearm to make it clear to the reader what this section addresses.
 * The sub-heading, "Each region per country may contain laws stating otherwise" could be a heading/section separate on its own since it is not addressing regulations or laws of different countries but now it is addressing laws/regulations that differ between regions on one country. Author could also specify in the heading that these region regulations are specifically applicable to only the United States of America.
 * More information could possibly given or researched in regards to the "Black Market" and "Gun Facts and Misconceptions." These sections provide very limited information and more detail on these sections could provide a clearer understanding to the reader.
 * Although article addresses more than one point of view, editor could possibly rephrase the information added under "Gun Facts and Misconceptions" in a way that doesn't seem that offer is leaning more towards to the idea that the statement about the importance of background checks to gun control, is irrelevant.
 * Author could possibly attempt to write in a more neutral form. Under the sub-heading, "Mental Illness and Gun Regulations" editor says the following, "The fact of the matter is that the number of mental health records in the NICS have been increased by over 700%..." and under the sub-heading, "Statistical Facts on Americans that own Guns" the author says, "...we rely on surveys..." Both these sentences seem like the author might agree with these statements and side with them. If these were said by scholars it might be good to specifically indicate which scholars made these statements.
 * Editor could possibly find a difference source for reference 2 because the source used is "The New York Times" which might not be considered a reliable source because it is a online newspaper.
 * Editor could make sure that all information added has accompanied reliable sources. Some information added does not include a source. For example the first definition of what a fire arm is, the content under "Regulations to Attain a Firearm in Different Countries" etc. Sources are given at some of the sub-headings which might seem unclear to the reader if this source relates to the content under the heading. Author could make sure citations are at the end of the sentence of each piece of information given not at the end of the sub-heading.

'''3. Most important thing author could change The most important thing the author or editor could change is putting the citations at the end of each sentence or paragraph of information related to that specific source. Editor could also make sure information is divided up by headings and sub-headings not just sub-headings.

'''4. Something about editors article that could be applicable to my own The bullet points author used to list information could be relevant to the article I am editing, since it could make my edits more organized and reader friendly. Sgeld002 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Prof R Feedback
you've done a lot of research and i see that you've made changes pursuant to the peer reviews received (good)...work on tone (neutrality) and be sure you include something related to business ethics, not just law/regulations  Micalva (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)