User talk:MaxxEvans/sandbox

Hi MAxx,

    I think one of the biggest strengths I found in your additions to the article is your attention to the credibility of a source and really examining whether there is strong enough research and data to back up findings and assertions made in the article.  One of the things wikipedia stresses most is decided what counts as a credible and unbiased source, and I think you have done a wonderful job questioning content that was previously added that may or may not be well cited and/or credible enough to be included, while also taking care to make sure the sources you use are credible.

    I think one of the things I struggle most with for this article is organization of your additions.  I would possibly consider breaking up the information into different sections so that the reader will have an easier time following along and understanding the content of the page.  I think this would mostly be beneficial when you are discussing the assertions that different researchers have made.  There were several "on the other hand"s that it became a little confusing and a little more difficult to follow along.  So maybe looking at a way to organize that information could be helpful for readers who don't have any previous knowledge of the topic and may have difficulty following along.  However, that could completely be something that is only difficult for me to keep up with but may be very clear to other readers.  

Overall I think you've made a lot of excellent additions and have done a great job of making sure that this is a credible and back up article.

Vicktoriea94 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)