User talk:AlaynaPaige/sandbox

Once you have your updated version posted here, coudl you please peer-review at least the following two drafts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexBishU/sandbox and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vincent-Jay-Matwawana/sandbox Dwebsterbu (talk)

Peer Review
What is currently present is good. The origins of the PTC is detailed and cohesive. Although expansion is needed, introduction gives a strong general idea of what the article will pertain to. What needs to be further done is pretty obvious - conclusion needs to be fleshed out, new sections about what initially happened and what happened leading up to truth commission should be added as well as formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum G Fraser (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The format in which your moving towards is promising but it's clear that the article needs a little more work done to it. Perhaps some headers that can divide the sections of your article and also some elaborations in regards to the events that sparked a need for this commission. citations are needed as well like many of the other articles but you seem to be on the right track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent-Jay-Matwawana (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on your work!
Hi, Alayna! I told your professor I'd give a bit of feedback on each of your sandboxes, so please see my comments below: Thanks for all of your hard work! I hope this feedback is helpful and gives you some actionable next steps. Please feel free to ping me on my talk page if you have any other questions or need anything—hope you're enjoying editing. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead paragraph: It looks like you've repeated the sentences twice, with slight variation. I'd remove the second set of sentences that basically repeat the first, as you want the article to be as concise as possible—especially the intro paragraph.
 * Upon first reading the "history" section, my initial thought is that the language doesn't sound as neutral as it could. "The commission looked into how her administration rigged...": I'm not familiar with the topic, but it sounds like this was an investigation. If that's the case, consider altering language like this to something closer to, "The commision investigated accusations that her administration rigged...." It's a good idea to comb the whole article solely with the question of "does this present the facts as we know them today? Or is my personal opinion—or even that of the majority of the folks involved—come through in my tone?"
 * One of the most important aspects of a Wikipedia article is that they have in-line citations throughout the article. That means that any one or two sentences can be verified by a reader who scans the article and wants to check reliability. Your references look good, but can you cite all of the facts throughout the article? If someone comes along and rearranges/reorganizes the content, you want each point to still be verifiable!
 * As to references, you currently have URLs for a lot of them without any context. This handout can hopefully help you out, and you can definitely use the Reference toolbar in the editing box, which I find extremely helpful!
 * There are a few other formatting issues that really aren't a big deal—someone else can always come along who has a bit more experience with editing and wiki code. :)