User talk:Tyohann/sandbox

Peer Review

This article seems like it is being developed well. You have a pretty good lead: it explains what the title of the Wiki page is about, and you it explains some of the basics aboout who made it and why. The article also does a great job of showing breadth and neutrality in tone. If anything could be improved, it would be adding more information to the other sections. If possible, you could also add more headings to provide more information. If you can find any more sources than the ones already used, feel free to use them, for they will add even more breadth and perspective to the article. Ewooten (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)ewooten

(I copied the peer review of your article to this page as well to be sure that you saw it!) --Jmstew2 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments

My apologies Thomas, I thought my comments on your article had been posted before class but I see that they weren't! See -- we all mess up in the system sometimes. Anyways, here are my thoughts: I really like the two sections you have added, you have a really good start here. The first section (impact) should include some statistics (if you are able to find them) about how much money was donated in total or to specific campaigns/organizations/topics as a result of this event. In general, more detail around the causes (specific organizations?) or other info (did this giving day spawn any more action?) would improve it. Is the even still going annually, or has it stopped? The second section reads like speculation the way you have it written -- both sections need to include properly cited sources, and this second one should tell us who is concerned about these scams (I am assuming you are getting this from a particular source). --Jmstew2 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)