User talk:Svila010/sandbox

Jennifer's peer review
Hi!

I read the edits and additions you added to your article. It is great, but I think some parts still need some editing. It is good that the information you added in your sandbox was relevant to the article topic. However, I think one part made it appear a bit bias. The part is "This not only resulted...". The words "not only" make it seem like you want to point out on the number of things that resulted negatively. I suggest just removing those words.

Also, as far as the organization goes, it all depends on where you are going to place the new section of "ethical implications." I advise putting either in the "Cause of ignition failure" or in the "Aftermath. I say the cause because due to a lack of communication, an ignition failure ended up happening. For the aftermath, you could add it as how General Motors's unethical culture ended up on the spotlight because of this issue.

In addition, in the "ethical implications" section, you said that the recall impacted the company's reputation. I think you should add on how it impacted their reputation.

Furthermore, I am not sure how reliable are all your sources because information about the source is not presented on the reference section for sources 3,4, and 5. The sources just have a link to FIU libraries. I suggest you manually putting the article's information when citing. Also, I think you should cite more sources in some parts. For example, in "This only resulted in numerous injuries and deaths...," there is no citation to support that. You should also add some links to some words in case the reader does not know what your term means. For example, having a link for Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Overall, I an awesome job so far.I hope this helps.Jennifert02 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Prof R Feedback
the new section on ethical implications is helpful to the article's improvement given that the original only discusses legal issues...be careful with tone---not neutral in some areas (shouldn't say "resulted in...") language needs to be more objective/matter of fact  Micalva (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)