User talk:BigRandy73
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Northeastern_University/ENGW_3315_Advanced_Writing_in_the_Disciplines,_Online_(Fall_2017). Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article. |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, BigRandy73, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review of Ren
[edit]Hey Abdullah, I see this is a good Wikipedia article. I like your structure that first tells the background of your topic. To be honest, if I just read the introduction paragraph of your topic, I still wouldn’t know what CSE means. However, a good background really helps to build my understanding. For some parts, I think you can write more detail. For example, in the area of “Business ethic”, it may be good for you to reinforce with some sources of examples, because in my point of view, it is always good to have a theory pair with an example, especially for the kind of knowledge that people don’t talk about frequently. But other than that, I like the article overall.
Hi Ren! I'm Ally and I'm doing a peer review of your piece. Unfortunately, the manner in which you've formatted it in your sandbox makes it very difficult to separate your personal writing from that which already exists in the original article. I think it would've been helpful for you to have added an initial segment which explains your article and your reasoning for selecting it for editing, as well as the deficits you are hoping to address. I'm still not clear as to why this addition is important and necessary. That being said, I believe your additions to this article can be found in bold. The first issue that needs to be addressed in this article is your addition of such a lengthy quote. I don't think this quote necessarily brings a lot of value to this article, and I think it is worded in a confusing manner. If citing this quote directly is imperative to this piece, I think you need to rethink how it's structured in the article. I think another area to address would be the lack of citations included in your addition. I think it would be beneficial to include 4-5 more citations to relevant scholarly sources. Finally, I think that you should consider the structure of your addition and it fluidity with the rest of the piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyschulz16 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)