User talk:Tdonohue18/sandbox

Peer Revisions (Will O'Neill) - I think you should do a close reading of the work you have written. Some of the sentences are missing words that are important for clarity purposes. - I also think that you could maybe make your summary of the section a little more concise. - Overall, I thought your contributions were good. You seem to provide the reader with information that is necessary to understanding the text.

Chau's Peer review

I think there are a few grammatical errors which can be fixed but otherwise the proposed revisions are pretty good. Providing background information about the real-life penguins is a good choice because the author's decision to write the book was based largely on the discovery of these penguins. Children can see that this actually happened in real life, and they can be introduced to the idea of same-sex relationships in a really positive way. Expanding the "Classroom Benefits" section is also a good idea because it will balance out some of the negative feedback the book has received and make the page more neutral overall.

Chaunguyenle (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)