User talk:Mkizer99/sandbox

Dylan's Peer Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanvanetta (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I found that your article on collaborative writing needs more sources. Two is not sufficient. The information in your article was accurate however and sufficiently cited just not with enough sources. It seems to be lacking useful content that an audience might find useful. It is neutral which is great. It is also worth noting that you used only abstracts of articles which do not give in depth information about what you are looking for but instead an overview of the article source you were looking at. I highly advise that you seek new and complete sources that you can gain access to.

Dylanvanetta (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Bailee S. Peer Review

I feel like this article was very short, and lacked content. Also you should have more than two sources, more sources means more content which can kill two birds with one stone. Plus relying on one source to find information can sometimes be unreliable and unpredictable, and will most likely be flagged by the wiki editors at a later date. A little more information of the different types of collaborative writing would be a good idea, because then It can give readers a little more information other than just a definition that can be found easily by oneself at any given time. I have the same comment about Basic Steps of Collaborative Writing, like the different types it is very vague and just needs a little more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bls15 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)