User talk:Alex Atwood7/sandbox

Article draft feedback
Your focus on how Haarlem oil benefits horses is a great one for this project, and it looks like you've found a website that will help you have that specific conversation. As you continue adding to and revising your article additions, some things to keep in mind are:
 * Can you locate additional credible sources? Drawing information from multiple sources can go a long way to showing credibility in an article, and can help you have greater breadth and depth of understanding on the topic you're contributing to
 * As you continue to improve these additions, you will most likely want to move them out of list form and into sentences. Providing context would also be helpful--how commonly is Haarlem oil used on horses? Is it only used in relation to competition? What is the history of this/when did this practice start? These are the kinds of things it would be very helpful for a reader to know in addition to the specific uses/benefits.
 * Organization-wise, the discussion about this product's use for horses would make sense as its own section of the article with a separate heading (and a link in the table of contents, which would mean adding a table of contents to the article). You will also want to make light additions to the lead section so that it appropriately preview this new information in the article.

My biggest recommendations as you continue working on this over the next week are to find more sources that will then help you have a more robust conversation about the use of Haarlem oil in relation to horses.

Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to reading your polished draft! Nicoleccc (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Choose a topic feedback
This is a really interesting range of articles to be considering! All have good potential, but I have a few notes for each, so will separate those out by article:

Human memory process: This one seems the least tangible of the three options you've listed here, which might make it the most challenging to tackle, or might make it the easiest to make good improvements in, depending on how good (and how many) sources you're able to find and whether you have a clear plan for how to organize the article (organization and some breaking out into sections seems like a critical thing this one needs in addition to general expansion. Improved sentence flow and grammar is certainly a bonus, but probably a lower priority when there are such significant big-picture issues still).

Liquid X: I would be very curious what sources you're able to find on this beyond the manufacturer's website (and the fact that this website is no longer working might be an indicator that the drink is no longer being made). The specificity of this article is promising, but this might be your toughest one to find good sources for.

Haarlem oil: There is some great potential here to expand this one with a history section, information about the company that makes it (and whether/how that company or the oil's formula have changed over time), and the absorption of the word into other purposes in the language/culture. One possible challenge for this one is that you may find that at least some of the good sources are written in Dutch. If you aren't fluent in Dutch, I would recommend being very aware of what range of information and how many quality sources you're finding in English (and would caution you away from online translation options, as these tend to be pretty inaccurate and sometimes return essentially gibberish).

For these articles, I don't see your initial research results, so that would be my biggest overall note as you're deciding which one of these to focus on--do that initial research. What are you finding in a general Google search? A library catalog search? A library database search? Which of these topics are you finding the greatest number of sources for from a range of quality places? That is likely your best bet for this project. If you have multiple options with good results, I would suggest pursuing the one you are most curious about or interested in learning more about. Nicoleccc (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Article evaluation feedback
You do a nice job discussing this article, and I see each of the main groups of questions addressed in your evaluation. I'm a little surprised that it met C-class criteria given some of the persisting issues you've pointed out (particularly in bias and sourcing). Your use of specific examples to illustrate your observations is also excellent. Nicoleccc (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)