User talk:Zackdu/sandbox

The article is very very thorough which I think is important for having a good Wikipedia article

It seems like you should maybe explain a bit more what each term is because if not then I'm left to kinda guess what you're talking about

There are also a few sentences here and there that are kinda only serving to fluff up the article. Like the very first sentence in the history section you start with a question which would be a really good way to engage the audience in a different type of article, but Wikipedia should be just factual objective information I believe

Maybe, in the beginning, provide a bit more information about how there is debate between what the true source of the tekhelet is, otherwise, the audience is just left to assume that there is some sort of issue in the first place

There are a couple of times when you use the pronoun "we" to refer to something within Jewish culture and you should refrain from using personal pronouns in a Wikipedia article

Overall if you just clarified provided a bit more context with terms and situations I think it would be much easier to understand the article

Peer review

1. I think the article does a good job in being detailed enough, along with lots of sources accompanying it. The subheadings are very specific and non-generic.

2. In the line 'The word chilazon also means snail in arabic. ', you can add the word in the Arabic script in parenthesis. Add some reference to 'Many other Rabbi's do not agree with this statement.'

3. I would suggest you add more images along with the text, even for things that are not directly referring to the topic heading (for example, you can add images of the snail species you mentioned).

4. I like how, despite being so dense, your article sounds engaging enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just invert it (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)