User talk:Emmachancellor/sandbox
Hey this is a great contribution--your organization makes much more sense than the current page. One suggestion I had: 1. Some of the un-cited information should perhaps be removed/flagged, or a source should be found. (E.g. the "neus"/"hana" anecdote, while enlightening, really should be cited or removed--or at least flagged as lacking a citation). Same goes for the entire early life section, which is well written, but comes off as dubious because of a lack of citations. Also, why is there an underlined phrase in the Lead section? Just curious.
- User: Bradley Goldsmith, Feb. 16, 2020
Hi Bradley, thank you so much for your comments. I have added my references and in text citations to alleviate the dubious-ness. The anecdote about "Hana" was not my doing, it was actually already on the original page. I feel that it's really unnecessary... so I removed it. Also, the reason why it was underlined was because originally I was going to edit around what was already written so I started underlining my contributions in the sandbox. But the writing was so poor on the original page that I just decided to re-write the whole thing. Emmachancellor (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Emmachancellor
Evans Civ Comment
[edit]This is a really well-written article! Your writing is clear, and the organization makes the article easy to follow. I honestly can't think of anything I would change besides maybe adding more citations. I think that the wikipedia policy is to add a citation to the end of every sentence even if the citation would be redundant. RWakely99 (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)