User:German1995/sandbox

Peer Review:

The lead section was great! Great opening lead section. Even though it wasn't said clear cut, I pulled it out pretty well what seemed as if it was the lead section. The key points are also very clear, straight to the point. The contribution was not sufficient at all. I could not quite make out whether this was the whole wiki page or just a section of the page? There is definitely room to add more information. Article topic is clear, references are included also. The contribution does consider a variety of perspectives, but I would suggest when talking about the different degrees, the user uses that as an opportunity to break that area down and expand more! Open it up into brief sections. But things were very neutral. The wikipage was too short to decide whether there was nuances and subtle distinctions. The claims supported are appropriate for the references included along with the information, it is reliable. Because they are from an academic journal. Sources are used and presented well. The wikipage came from a neutral standpoint. I didn't see any opinions stated at all. It was balanced well. But needs to be expanded! It is way too short! The entry is written well, no grammatical errors spotted. It is simple cut and dry! There wasn't any images at all. For the open-ended questions: The wikipage is very clear cut. But way tooo short! Im wondering where exactly is the rest of the page? it is not bias at all. Two improvements would be expand the article! because it has a good start but its like where is the rest of the article! break down some areas such as the degrees to allow room for expansion and more development.