User talk:Kimhaney3/sandbox

Here are some tips to help improve your article: The first paragraph starts off with a definition. A definition is boring and if someone wanted a definition they would just look it, and this definition is horrible. It doesn’t even make sense and should be removed. The halo affected is barely explained before there is an “example”. My next concern about this article is all the supporting evidence, (supporting evidence section, the role of attractiveness in the halo effect, further evidence for attractiveness, and experiments with jurors). While these experiments may be relevant to the halo effect there doesn’t need to be so many section break ups that are all experiments. Maybe combining some and making them a whole “further research section” would help make this article stronger. I like how you have made the experiments with jurors its own section. The Hail effects and NGOs section should be removed it is irrelevant and isn’t very explanatory, although I think this was already done. Also the Devil effect section could be more expanded it is interesting. Pkpe222 (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I like your topic and I think it was a good choice. The opening paragraph should be revised. The definition needs to be either changed or removed and I would also expand more in the opening paragraph instead of just having an introduction that consists of one poor definition and one simple example. The definition needs to be explained further and/or a more exciting/interesting first sentence needs to be developed. Also, on a positive note, you have cited very well throughout the article so when you make revisions be sure to continue that. If you could find more information to include in the introductory section concerning the judicial system, that would be ideal. The introduction right now is very short and vague. KiondraMcGee (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]