User talk:Samham1997/sandbox

I think this is a very well researched topic that this group has put together. The only critique I would suggest is to have bold or distinct headings where there's a new topic. Other than that, I thought the page had some very interesting information.

Peer Review

I think this is a pretty great article and is very well put-together. However, I think it would do a lot of good to add a big, main title at the top just to let people know what they will be reading about. Also, I think that a small introductory paragraph at the beginning and a table of contents directly after the intro would be a good addition. Great job though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leepat998 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

Your draft has major formatting and layout problems. Please see pages 7-9 of the Editing Wikipedia brochure. You should have received a hard copy from your instructor, but just in case, I have linked to it above. It also needs major copyediting - for example, Fort Hood, not fort hood, Khan, not Khans. You reused reference #8 properly, but the Huffington Post reference is repeated three times. In addition, if the automatic reference generator mangles the names (like in the HuffPo article or ref #8) please fix them.

Please add links to other Wikipedia articles. Terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be linked the first time they appear in the article. That way readers can click through and learn more about that topic. Please keep quotes to a minimum. You should re-write the information in your own words. When you do quote, make sure you are representing the quoted material accurately. For example, you wrote

Other members, like Capt. Nadi Kassim, have said he "has felt nothing but support from the military since he was a cadet."

This gives the impression that the words you quoted are Capt. Kassim's words. However, the article doesn't have quotes around those words; they may be his actual words, but they may also be a paraphrase.

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be written in formal prose. Wikipedia articles are also supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. The following is neither {{talkquote|American Muslim veterans and service members alike struggle with a feeling that the government they serve doesn’t want to acknowledge their sacrifice. It’s a feeling of isolation that can be compounded by}

• Contractions like "doesn't" and "It's" don't belong in formal writing
• Calling military service "sacrifice" isn't neutral language - the people on the other end of the gun probably wouldn't see it as sacrifice, and Wikipedia articles shouldn't privilege one perspective over the other.
• The final sentence is incomplete.
  (If you reply to this message here, please include {{ping|Ian (Wiki Ed)}} in your response, to ensure that I see your reply.)
  Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian thank you for reviewing our article. We made changes and were wondering if you could look it over once more. Thank you! @Ian (Wiki Ed):