Talk:Institutional Act Number Five

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ideotrocks. Peer reviewers: Dnaugle21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on AI-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219125747/http://www.politicaparapoliticos.com.br:80/interna.php?t=755387 to http://www.politicaparapoliticos.com.br/interna.php?t=755387

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Review of AI-5
Information provided looks good, but we need more sources on the information in regards to the consequences section. There isn't enough provided.Dnaugle21 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability have you identified to orient your article revisions? How will you use the Five_pillars in your approach to expanding the section on consequences?  Katherine.Holt (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of AI-5 Initial Draft
It looks like you are off to a great start, however much additional work will be needed. I think you've gotten a little too specific in the third paragraph of you lead section, which is meant to just be an overview of your topic. It appears that this is because you gave some historical background, which is great, but it should be placed in its own historical background section. Additional information should also be able to be put into the lead section, such as the ending date to your lead section to go along with the starting date. Additionally, in your "Consequences" section, I would suggest linking more of the terms and names to other wiki pages to making it easier for your readers. You should also look to expand more on your consequences section, as it seems that's the most important and talked about area of AI-5. Lastly, I would suggest expanded upon the "The end of AI-5" section. Think about why and how they were ended? Was the ending permanent and quick? Or was there more of a transitional period in its termination? Tommy DP (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of AI-5
Greetings. Sorry about the lateness of me looking this over. So far from reading over the article, it appears to be good. However, I would recommend moving some information around from the third paragraph of the lead section to the historical section. In the consequence section, It would be a good idea to cite all those articles, that way to identify it with an actual source. More links would be a good idea as well. Otherwise, looks pretty good.Dnaugle21 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)