User talk:Anonymr/sandbox

Looks great. I think you're ready for peer review!

peer review numba 2
holistic review: good elaboration on what's existing. quick, concise, good brevity. elaborate more, though. you have so many good sources and only use them once.


 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, all content is relevant.
 * 2) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Unbiased, nice
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, perfect. avoids being didactic
 * 4) Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Citations are good and reliable, mostly coming from educated people. Nice. 21 sources. double nice.
 * 5) Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? many are from torres's mouth, but additions like the NY times review was good
 * 6) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No, sources are recent

nitpicks:
 * Not sure how to do this, but his bibliography is just as long in his article. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway, the editors made the bullet list have two columns and it shortened the page. Looks wise, I think you should do this, as it takes up less space and on a short page that matters more.
 * You have hella good sources and only use them once. You should elaborate with them and provide more information. There are major jumps in his history, we go from a kid to a professor in like 300 words. What did he teach, what were his thoughts, etc. Don't do more research though, I'm sure your current sources has info to tap into.
 * sexiest man award is hilarious please keep it

overall, nice. add more if you got time. know it's finals. tristan Ahugebox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)