User talk:Ilikesleeping1/sandbox

Great Job and very interesting content! I would suggest using more sources especially since there are none cited for the second part. Review for some wording errors and uncapitalize the W in websites. There are a few sentences that could be shortened to be more to the point. For example, in the youtube section you could remove the "instead of reading literal texts" part and just add the information about vlogging. Lorenaramirezl (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good! At first glance, I realize that there are no citations included for the "The Youtube Phenomenon and "Vlogging"" section. Since I would think you used a source in this section, I would make sure to definitely include that. "Self-branding, also known as personal branding, is the behavior of individuals to intentionally develop of public imagine for commercial gain or social/cultural capital" make sure to revise this sentence. I am sure you mean "image" instead of "imagine". Make sure to scan through the article for grammatical revisions and corrections. Great work so far! Jaredgoz (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! You can search for more resources and expand more.Koko413 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the content in your paragraphs and think the sentence structure and word choices are very strong. It is also fact driven. I think maybe adding some more sources would help to go more in depth with the topic. I also think the use of internal links and the photo make your section even stronger. Isabelleshegog (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Isabelle[reply]

The content is very interesting. The two sections are clearly defined and offer unique information. I would edit some of your grammar such as the capitalization of "Online" and remove the word "good". I would also add an example. I see that you added a picture of Logan Paul. I suggest that you explain how he gained success through vlogging. Good work! Ashleydavidsongwu (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your sandbox is very well organized and it will be very good once it finished. You should know that already, but you still need to work on some topics that are just the title "Rise of Social Media" "Online sharing Platforms, and "Self Branding". Even those bigger titles like "Self-branding" I think it needs some description, at least an introductory paragraph. Besides that, I think the information is well-driven. You could add some more citations to each paragraph, especially this last one, which doesn't have any citation. Just one last thing, I think the big quotations that you use in the first paragraph could use some shrinking in some aspect.Rafamatalon1234 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you organized your passages with unique subsections/headings. I would suggest maybe finding more outside sources to make your page more detailed. Also, I would suggest putting the citation ([1] for example) after the fact/information/period you used from the source. Great work overall! Fariha34 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I hve anything to say that hasn't already been said. I think that your tone throughout is very neutral. I'm impressed with how you described the information.SocksOfDeath (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! For the 2nd citation, I think you should put it at the end of the sentence. Also, you can add more information on the experts words and what info do they give us.ChristalCao (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this, it has filled my head with knowledge on self branding and vlogging. To me it seems like a cool idea to do. I would like to see another 2 examples of youtube vloggers, who present completely different, contrasting personalities, therefore the audience would gain more knowledge. Charlier118 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The language is neutral, as it should be, so great job on that. Other peers have mentioned problems with your citation, so look over that and you should be great!--Jasonkung22 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Jasonkung22[reply]

i think you need to work on some of your sentence structures and word choice as some of it doesn't flow as well as it could. i really like all the information you put and how fact based your writing is. The image you inserted could use a better caption as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wohlina (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great information and it is pretty attract passage. You could add some of his own effect on the internet include both positive and negative effects. Samuelzhao000005 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Samuelzhao000005[reply]

Very clear and organized! A couple of minor edits: "the rise of social media today HAS" ; Move your citation to the end of your sentence that starts with "Experts on marketing have concluded that." ; Delete the "actual" before "financial gains" and the "good" before "example" in your last paragraph, beacuse it adds a hint of your own personal opinion. ; You could split up the sentence about Pewdie Pie to make it flow a little better. Nice job! Isamouse79 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Only thing is that it might be helpful if you add some more citations! Sydneycurrie5 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]