User talk:Sophieb905/sandbox

Great job! You have good citations, information and pictures. Your contribution is very professional and seems ready for review. Carlapicasso (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

good job explaining the criticisms made by each person Ddurandisse (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Dayla[reply]

Nice paragraph! I like that you included hyperlinks, it will be very helpful for understanding and expansion of knowledge. Additionally, the paragraph has a nice flow and is easy to read. I think there is a minor grammatical error in the sentence about Alison Assiter; “to” is missing in “there should be a return Enlightenment values.” Great job! Awhite07 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidrider Peer Review

Other than the previously mentioned edits, which I can see you fixed, it looks very professional. Could appear on Wikipedia tomorrow honestly. Only minor edits I would suggest are rephrasing these portions for clarity purposes: "and for being denied it so long, define a woman identity" / add mini bios for the critics and supporters so that an average reader knows generally whether they are trustworthy to talk about the subject or not...

Hoepfull these suggestions help!

Regards, Rapidrider (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You should add in more details about frug. However, great job on dividing your sections. It looks neat and concise. Also, great job on formatting of the photo on your wiki page. Also, I really like your information that you used. Robertpark1999 (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)robertpark1999[reply]

Very good start! I liked how you added pictures, places where you are adding/deleting sections. Also, good use of sources and footnotes. The only cretic I had would be, have your sentences a little shorter because some of them are run-ons. Also, the first paragraph is long for how much you sources you have. I hope this helps! Good job so far! Miaeschlidt (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Good use of citations and linked articles, looks very legitimate. Photos and sources look good in the article. Like the other comments, I would just shorten some of the sentences because some seem to be a bit long. Good work!Henrykuv (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds great! But you can just start with "French feminism" so it sounds more factual. Cbettica65 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence reads, "What is known as "French feminism" is an Anglo-American...", and I think it would sound better if you change it to "French Feminism" is defined as...". Fields18x (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this looks good! strong use of headers, links, citations, and media. Make sure to link the article you are working on. I agree with those about saying to start with French Feminism to make it more fact driven. Oliviaohearn (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

great job with your portion up to this point, the one thing i would point out when you submit to Shalor is that you intent to take out some of the topics. other than that good job Casey518 (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Casey O'Connor[reply]

Honestly, this was very good! I enjoyed reading your description about feminism especially with your different sub topics. The picture really tied everything together. Benitalukose (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Benita Lukose[reply]

This is so good! I think this is doesn't really need much of improvement. Bokyung0327 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]