User talk:Abigayle UC Account/sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Paleo-mammal-stub

Audrey Brians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred._L._Bonfoey

Possible revisions:
-Check for spelling/grammar in the lead section..."reduce control..." -Create another internal link for a "conservative government" in your lead section -add internal links to each subheading -add more references -complete "aftermath" section Luciusap (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Editing:
Lead Section: the first sentence says"The Transport Act 1985" should have the word "of" in between "Act" and "1985". Confusing sentence structure in the second part of the lead section with "environmental effect private transport", consider revising the wording...confusing to read. Good summary of the ideas presented more in-depth on your topic later on in the body of the article.

Organization: Seems to be in a good chronological order. Makes sense that you display the meaning of the Transport Act first and then go into how/when it was created. You then talk about how the Act impacted everyone which is very smart. I think the body of your article is very strong.

Tone: Presenting facts as they are, no biased opinions are included from people that either supported or didn't support the making of this act. Strictly sticks to the facts-smart choice.

Balance: Everything seems to be similar in length and you have the same amount of internal links per paragraph. Consider revising the part III of the article. Either delete the section or add as in-depth content as you do in the previous parts about deregulation. Also, consider adding the same amount of internal links to other Wikipedia articles.

References: You need to add at least one more source to have the minimum required amount of references. I like how you've integrated them more than one time within all of your body paragraphs. Maybe add more variety into the lead section-I noticed that you only use the first and second source in the lead section. Luciusap (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from justin
The lead section is very good because it gives you a little summary of what the article is going to talk about. The amount of new information that has been added is incredible. There is a lot of different things that you brought into the article that was not originally there. Another good thing about the revision of the article is the amount of external links that are being used. The information that was added to the article is also important and relevant to the topic. Mostly every thing about the article, but if I had to fix a few things, I would add a fifth source and use the information from that source.

Feedback from Brady
Lead Section: Your lead section is very well written, gives enough information for the reader to understand the concept of this article an allows more detail to be added into later sections

Organization: The article is organized well and allows the reader to understand the topic easier, but I would not use the word: "Aftermath" as a section header would use more of a word as in result because of the violent undertone with aftermath

Balance: The article is well balanced

Tone: The tone is neutral.

References: Good use of in-text citations, Good actual sources used.

Dennisbt (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)