User talk:Blcummings/sandbox

Kanzaabid2795 peer review
The article talks directly about the activity status of the party instead of talking about what the party is. I think that there could be a proper lead sentence first that briefly introduces the party before talking about its activity status. In the original article, there was no current information about the status of the party, but the new article adds to this information and updates it. Firstly, there is concise information about what the party is planning to do and then a detailed explanation on how it is planning to make the party active.

The content added in the article is up to date and relevant. The lead has also been updated. There is relevant and precise information about the party’s goals. More information can be added in the article about the formation of party and the members.

The added content is presented in a neutral tone and based mostly on facts and figures. There was no apparent biased contribution. It does not look like it is leaning towards a certain point of view. The content is balanced and does not include personal point of view.

Reliable sources of information have been added to the article. Also, it is noteworthy that all the sources are current and up-to-date. There is some information in the article where the reference is not provided, like when talking about the proposed petitions by the Green Party. The links provided in the article are working fine.

The content added in the article is concise and brief. It is clear and very easy to read. It also does not have any spelling or grammatical mistakes. Furthermore, it can be divided into subsections and more paragraphs can be made all the while adding a little more content. For now, it’s just one chunk.

The added content has greatly improved the quality of the original article. The original article had provided little or no information but this adds a lot to it. As mentioned previously, to improve this, more content can be added in this. Different areas can be focused on to have a wider approach on the policies of the party. Overall, it is a great contribution.

Kanzaabid2795 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Kanza Abid

Ashley Britt's Peer Review
Ashley’s Peer Review

Lead Section: The lead section for the Green Party article does include an introductory sentence that is clear and describes a brief description of the article’s major section. The group did a good job at adding new material to the article. Their into flows pretty well and correlates to the topic. Content: The group did a good job at adding new and relevant info. The new information is up to date and is relevant to the Green Party and Idaho. The group went more in depth of the topic, allowing the reader to clearly understand the main points about the Green Party. Tone and Balance: This article is presented in a very neutral way and there is no biased language used. They are presenting straight facts and there is an equal amount of information put into each subtopic. Sources and References: The new information added is clearly backed up by reliable and thorough sources. Their sources correlate to their writing and are all current and up to date. The sources and references work and were cited correctly. Organization: The article is clear and easy to read. It is very well written as well. I would recommend breaking up any new information that might be added in the future into different sections. Having information in different sections with subtitles will make it a little easier to read due to smaller paragraphs. It is also a good way to organize. I only noticed one spelling mistake. I believe it is supposed to be “from” and not “form” in the following sentence. "Due to the lack of signatures received form the citizens of Idaho, both these petitions failed." Overall Impressions: The group did a great job at adding new and valuable information to the article. The article started off with only one sentence and the group managed to add more information in an organized and clear way. Adding more information and breaking it up into different sections will help improve the flow of this article. So far, this article has come a long way and looks very good.

Ashleyb7620 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Ashley Britt

Alyssa Madden Peer Review
Lead Section: Your sandbox only has one paragraph right now, but I think some of the information you do have can be turned into a lead section.

Articles Content: There can be more information I think and the content that you do have can be rearranged differently.

Articles Tone & Balance: Reading the article, it was a little harder to follow since it seemed to jump from place to place.

Articles References: The references were all correct and the links worked.

Articles Organization: The article can be organized a little bit better and different sections added.

I would maybe start off with explaining what the Idaho Green Party is and then go into the details about it. I would also maybe reword a few things to keep from overusing the word “they”. To avoid this, I feel like you could combine some sentences instead of having two different sentences about the same thing. I also think that the last sentence is a repeat of the first and is not needed. There are also a few spelling errors, such as, “The Idaho Green Party is currently petitioning to become and (an?) active party again. The total valid signature(s?) required are 13,806.”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbritzman (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)