User talk:Tul54161/sandbox

1. First, what does the article-draft do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? Adding a more precisely-worded sentence to replace the indeterminate information was done well. The addition of the sentences for the first article made the article more reliable. 2. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? No, all of the sections seem to be in correct places. 3. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Explain. No, the article does not contain a biased structure. Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

4. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? No, the article does not draw a conclusion or try to convince the reader to take a certain point of view. The first article would be improved with the addition of reliable sources. The second article seems to be in need of a few more sources. I'm not sure if the third change is related to the second article or if it is from a separate article. 5. Are there any changes you would suggest the author apply to the article? Why? In the article about clean eating, changes could be made in the structure of the sentence "The idea of "clean eating" has been criticized as lacking in scientific evidence and potentially posing health risks" to make it easier to understand. 6. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I could research more about the connection between clean eating and 'raw foodism' and add more to the articles. cungrmawi Cungrmawi (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)