User talk:Cgome166/sandbox

Nichole Peer Review

The addition of a table is a really nice touch. It breaks up the information into a easier way that the reader can visualize and understand.

For “Some multi-level marketing (MLM) companies operate as pyramid schemes and consumers often confuse legitimate multi-level marketing with pyramid schemes. “ either add a citation to back up the ambiguous term “often," add a statistical value, or reword/remove the sentence. Doesn’t sound factual.

Add more citations/references, especially where you inputted quotes

Roger's Peer Review

The addition of the table breaking down the information is a nice and smart idea because it gives the reader to understand the information. The way you structured it some far is easy for the reader to understand. I think when the word you use the phrase"Some commentators contend that MLMs in general are nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes." the word 'some' brings a little doubt to the article. If you switch out the some the sentence will some factual. Overall the topic is great and you have good information. Maybe the only thing is a couple of citations. Good job for having at least five sources because the most difficult part is finding credible sources to back up what you want to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvale045 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Prof R Feedback

including a table is a great idea but the piece you're adding after "some commentators contend..." is unclear to me...there needs to be more of a connection/link...rework and add more material there so it makes sense Micalva (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)