User talk:Audradelaney/sandbox

Article Evaluation - Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Is everything relevant to the topic? - Yes, because all of the information is about Sarah Huckabee Sanders's life.

Is there anything that distracted you? - Not really. The paragraphs are long, but detailed. There is an entire section on her connection to the Trump presidency which is interesting.

Is there any information out of date? Anything that could be added? - I have looked at this page before. It is much fuller now than it was the last time I looked at it. To me, it did not seem like anything was missing but if I was evaluating it the last time I looked at it my view would have been different.

What could be improved? - I think there could be more detail on her early political career. As the press secretary, the information about the Trump presidency is important but more detail on her path their would be nice. I appreciate that her martial status and number of children are not presented right at the top of the page. It is nice information to know about her, but her path and decisions carry more weight.

Is the article neutral? / Viewpoints - For the most part, yes. The way some of the sentences are structured if gives off a disapproving tone, so I think it is a little bias. I think viewpoints are presented well, especially in the section about the Trump presidency.

Links/Support Info

Yes, the links work and support the information on the wikipedia page.

Reliable references? Bias?

Some of the links on this page are definitely bias and/or are feel good stories about SHS and her relationship to her father and others in politics. I think it would be hard to do a wikipedia page about someone in the spotlight like this without that being the case.

Talk page Talking about her salary, what photo of her should be used, if she is related to Bernie Sanders. It is part of 5 wikiprojects and is rated at start-class. We have not yet discussed it in class.

This is the talk page, not the sandbox
It looks like this is living in your talk page, not the Sandbox. BootsGordon (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Peer review response (10/8/18)

Based off of the suggestions from Kamillia, Kylie, and Aaron, I am going to clean up the language of my contribution. I agree with Aaron that there are parts of the content that need to be reworded. I also agree with Kamillia that trying to find a source on the current administration would be a good idea. Even having a couple sentences from the Obama Administration and Trump Administration would strengthen the message I am trying to convey. Audradelaney (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Kamillia Forbes Peer Edit
I think that its a good idea to add links to the articles and add some more depth to whats on the page. As far as your plan for the page, I think that you have a really solid idea of what you're going to accomplish. I noticed that you said that you were going to find articles that talk about the relationship between the media and the press secretary, but you were going to take some examples from the Obama administration. Although that is a great idea because like you said it shows bipartisanship, I think you should still add examples from the current administration because it would show the current disconnect. I don't know if you are allowed to do this, but I think maybe you should add some video links that could that could also show comparison, but I'm not sure if you could do that. Overall good job!Kamillia Forbes (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation (Kylie Tusing)
I really liked all your information, it was very in depth and informative which I think will make a good contribution to Wikipedia! It shows that you are very knowledgeable on the topic and this was a really good job! - Kylie Tusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieTusing (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Aaron's Peer Review

I believe that the proposed additions to Audra's selected article are pretty good. As I read through the proposed additions, I notice a number of spots where the author of these additions has indicated she will included a source or citation to support their assertions - this is absolutely a positive thing, and will no doubt ensure that the information provided on the page comes from reputable sources. For the most part, I believe the proposed additions are written well written. However, I do believe that the "piece of the puzzle" metaphor could be better implemented in the additions, the current use of this metaphor seems to be a "clunk" in the writing, not in the sense that the metaphor is totally out of place, but in the sense that the metaphor seems to jump out of nowhere: as it is, the writing doesn't flow well in places. I believe that adding a logical transition or an earlier introduction to the "piece of the puzzle" metaphor would remedy this "clunk" in the writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmoots (talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (James Hajek)
I'm just giving you a review of what I see. If it were me, I would give the page a bit more of a Historical aspect in that section, to give more substance and understanding of the topic. It was formed in the earlier half of the 20th Century. Jdhajek (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Something I think is lacking from this article is a history of people who have held the Press Secretary position. There have been a lot of famous people and colorful characters in this job that maybe could be mentioned to show the different ways this office has been handled. Also since all of the information comes from one source currently, you may want to find a variety of sources to add so that the information does not seem biased or one sided.Carsonfirestone (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

JaLynn's peer review
What are some examples of "press needs?" Maybe add a section to give more historical context It looks like you've cited your sources but on my end it says "no sources cited" that's something you may want to check on.