Talk:Marilyn Montenegro

Nathan's Revisions
Longnat (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Title is perfect
 * First sentence is direct and useful
 * The lead provides a great well-rounded summary of the article
 * Everything seems to be written in your owns words
 * Article is very easily interpreted by a non-expert
 * The purpose section seems to draw too many conclusions for the reader about her beliefs, its better to provide facts and allow the reader to decipher her values for themselves
 * Change "apart" to "a part"
 * I believe the contents breakdown is supposed to be below the lead of the article but besides that the article is formatted great
 * Maybe use in-text citations more frequently, it is hard to tell where each statement is sourced from

Dylan Jiao's peer revision
The first thing I'd like to say is that the wealth of information and the way you balance the information throughout the article is great. Next are the problems to address. To start it off simply, I fixed grammatical errors such as "active" to "activated", and "dedicated" to "dedication" in the first paragraph. I also changed "criminals" to "people" in the fourth passage to make it sound better. Another thing I did, was adding hyperlinks to terms that the audience might be interested to learn more about. I also improved neutrality by deleting "flawed" from "flawed justice system" since it sounds like persuasive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiaodn (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Pierce's revision

 * there is a article title
 * the first sentence is great
 * all five added sources are present
 * The summary and content of the article is good
 * The organization seems to be good
 * The tone is appropriate, there isn't one view being expressed, and the text is neutral.
 * the citation and sources are correct
 * The article coverage and new sections have all needed info

This article is really good, good job.