User talk:Sj.will/sandbox

Week 2

You did an okay job overall. Your answers on the content gap could have been more clearly written and more thorough. In future assignments, please write more and expand your answers. What examples can you think of? What led you to your answers? Those sort of things are essential for answers in this (and other!) classes. Your evaluation of the Sharpie page was okay, but again: it needs more. You are too vague there. It is imperative that you bring in quotations from the article if you are critiquing it directly. To say that "Some facts definitely need citation, and those with citations included come from sources that may/may not be credible," is insufficient. Alfgarciamora (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I will definitely attempt to expand more on my answers on the next assignment. I should have referenced the direct websites that didn't seem credible for use in the article. Some if not all of the sources were questionable, and I could've given more suggestions for each section. @Alfgarciamora:

Week 4

@Sj.will: Excellent job this week! Keep up the tremendous job, Sasha. I think you will definitely be able to add a lot to the Corday page. Alfgarciamora (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Week 5

@Sj.will: WHOA, you're actually going to translate one of the documents!? Alfgarciamora (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think It's possible, I'll try my best to. The one that I found has about 8 pages and they aren't that long. @Alfgarciamora:

Week 8

You have done an AMAZING job, Sj.will!!! Wowza! You actually translated the document, you added a substantial amount of useful information, and you have it all so nicely cited. Well done on an incredible job. =) From here on out, just make sure that you have everything organized, clean, crisp, and that all your citations match up. I am so proud of you - you really have added such a great amount of information to the world of crowdsourced information. Alfgarciamora (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)