User talk:UniversityofCincinnatiStudent/sandbox

Articles Considered for Revision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornean_white-bearded_gibbon

The history in the Bornean white-bearded gibbon could be added. Perhaps what they eat, the demographics, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Military

There is nothing added on this page. I would like to add a brief history of military in the United States. Following with when women were emitted into the military, and then, significant women and their impact.

UniversityofCincinnatiStudent (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)UniversityofCincinnatiStudent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlestrange_Stone

There is room to further explain the stone and the meaning for it. I would like to add to the paper some of the features of the stone, as per the site,, it is 60 cm high and 90 cm long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Glenmaquin

The page doesn't go into great detail about the battle. I would like to do more research and add these details: how many died in the battle? What were the odds going into battle? Etc.

UniversityofCincinnatiStudent (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)UniversityofCincinnatiStudent

Peer Editing
You're adding a lot of different information to the description tab on Bornean white-bearded gibbons. The beginning of the page is still kept the same, so you might want to add more information to the general information about your topic. I liked how you added different subsections, like the diet, to make your edits better organized. You have multiple sources correctly cited at the bottom of your sandbox. I think you should more subsections to your topic because there's many different areas of information that you can talk about for the Bornean white-bearded gibbons.Mehtaas (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is organized very well and I could follow the information provided very nicely. The subsections that you added seemed very relevant to your topic and added to the clear organization throughout the article. Your sources seemed to be cited correctly at the bottom of the page as well. The overall tone of the article seems to be slightly informal, but that is to be expected in a rough draft. Good job! Lukepat (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Information in your article is neutral which is good. The new subtopics on the diet is relevant to the article. Good use of footnote and hyperlinks between articles. I think adding more subtopics to cover other information such as their life cycle, and behavior. Look at other feature articles will help to give you ideas as to what information you should add to your article. Leungpl (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Editing Response
I have added more to the lead section. Including, the issue that is leading to the gibbon's endangerment (Logging) and I linked that to another page so one could learn more. Also, I included a sentence that explains the basics for what the article will go into further detail. 15:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)UniversityofCincinnatiStudent (talk)