User:Michsm/sandbox

My editing is done in a separate sandbox User:Michsm/draftingbox Paragraph: Set the style of your text. For example, make a header or plain paragraph text. You can also use it to offset block quotes. Make bold text.To fix a link to go where you really want it, say you have "blues", and your original wikilink goes to a page on the color/pigment blue, but want it to link to the music genre, you'd type genre into the target page section, "[[genre|blues]".

Wikicode for source editing: "  bold  ", wikilink " word "

Talk pages: to add a signature and time stamp after leaving a comment, add four tildes (~), to reply to another's mssg in a section, follow "message --> :first reply --> ::second reply" etiquette, for indentation structure, to get the attention of another wikipedian, type { {ping|username} }.

Consider balance of ideas, neutrality for which ideas get the most read, when inserting biased info, make note of that bias, and include the opposing side, ask questions about the article, leave them on the talk page, along with evals of the article.

Peer review - to start, go to student talkpage, add new section titled Peer Rev,

Easy, clear, full abstract      Clear structure       Balanced info       Neutral content        Reliable sources


 * "Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?


 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?


 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?


 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

Remember to sign the rev with ~ and my user name

Moving draft into live articles  move only what I added, save every few sentences