User talk:Tjc81/New sandobox

Caitlin's Peer Review: I think these are very nice additions to the overall article. The background section not only provides context for Chican@ studies, but it also helps the reader to understand the significance of the topic. Additionally, the response section puts Chican@ studies in a world perspective, where the reader can understand Chican@ studies also in the context of others’ responses, both positive and negative. The additions are very concise and include plain language. In proofreading this sandbox, I came across some grammatical errors, but very few. There are not citations for every sentence, including some sentences which convey a certain viewpoint. Some signal phrases are needed. However, the overall additions flow and are easy to follow. This is a comprehensive, well-done addition to the article. There are a sufficient amount of sources provided for this addition, as well. There are some instances of biased diction, mostly instances where “most scholars”, or something of that effect, is used and then there is no discussion of the multiple scholars in subsequent sentences. Overall, fantastic work. This will be an extremely helpful contribution to the article. Just focus on citing each sentence, fixing some grammatical errors, and changing some instances of language which is not neutral.

Peer Review
Aidans Evaluation: Overall, the additions of the background and responses section are necessary, mature, and executed properly through factual statements along with noteworthy content giving light to Chican@ studies. knowing that the article is missing a background section to begin with, it shows that this addition will be very helpful and significant to the audience considering every topic being written about in Wikipedia needs background to properly inform the reader. There are a few grammatical errors I noticed and possibly a slight bit of repetition in the end of the background section with the word "chican@", though I do understand how it could be necessary to properly serve the section. Otherwise I appreciate the motive to add both of these sections. I can relate to the responses section more in accordance with my article through the idea of chican@ studies being viewed in a negative light; since I discuss a law putting a ban on Mexican American studies due to its promotion of resentment toward a nation or another race. Well written sections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanrocha (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Based on the peer reviews, I feel as if the new content I have created is going in the right direction. Caitlin and Aidan feel as if my two new sections for the article make sense in the greater context of the topic, and that it is generally well-written and well-sourced. What I wish to work on now is making sure there are no grammatical errors, each sentence is cited, and that there is no bias in my writing. In addition, checking to make sure I have a sufficient amount of signal phrases for my work would be beneficial as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjc81 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)