User talk:Avictory/VilniusEconomy

Spelling/Grammar
Exceeds standard. Didn't find any errors!

Language
Exceeds standard. Great tone, whole thing felt completely natural when reading it aloud to myself.

Organization
Exceeds standard.

Coding
Exceeds standard. Great job here especially, with the links to other Wikipedia articles being nice touches!

Validity
Exceeds standard. Feels like it should already be in the Wikipedia article by this point!

Completion
Exceeds standard. Totally complete!

Relevance
Exceeds standard.

3/20 Evaluation by user:Guyarv
Dang, phenomenal job. Really great sections, I feel I really learned about this city! I'm hard-pressed to provide constructive feedback here...

Spelling & Grammar:

-Finance, paragraph 3: change "fourth lowest" to "fourth-lowest"

Language:

-Second paragraph of Infrastructure section needs reworking to fit encyclopedia-tone better.

-Great otherwise. Feels like a preexisting wiki article

Organization:

-I like hyperlinks to relevant things mentioned in the article, such as for the infrastructure summit and Bank of Lithuania. I also think it just makes the article 'look' better and more like something you'd expect on wikipedia.

Coding:

-No errors that I see

Completeness:

-Extremely complete! I didn't expect this much content from a first draft! Again, I really felt like I learned from this.

Relevance: -All good, though I felt that Energy: paragraph 2 may be more relevant under Research and Technology. Sources:

-They all look great to me.

References

-All fine. However, with citation 17 and 18, some parts (volume #?) are bolded. Is that normal and intended?

You made my peer-review job difficult by writing this so well. Tip of the hat to you. Guyarv (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)guyarv


 * Thank you for your feedback! It was very helpful to me. I've implemented all of your suggestions except moving the second energy paragraph. Avictory (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

03/20 evaluation by user:Kristinnmason
Language: Great tone. It is very professional, but also has a little bit of your voice in it. I don’t think it’s supposed to be like that but I think it gives your article life.

Organization: All the titles are perfect and great descriptions of what information we can expect to find.

Coding: No coding errors.

Completeness: This looks very complete. You really have a great amount of information with good sources! Awesome job!

Relevance: Some of your information seemed like a little bit of an overload but I think it all tied together really well by the end of each section.

Citations: All look good! They are appropriately placed and I really like that you referenced some of your citations more than once.


 * Thank you too! It would have been helpful to know where you felt my voice came through or where there was "information overload". Avictory (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)