User talk:Cdalfons/sandbox

I share many of the points Jacob makes. It would also help to have more an opening sentence at the start of each section. It's not clear, for example, what Stamford Raffiles is. Second, the writing needs to be proofread! If you can, read the contribution outloud and take out any words that aren't needed. One addition to the article is to break the economic history of Singapore into ranges. Perhaps those ranges can corresspond to political leadership or changes to the country's political system. Cassell04 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Parliament of Singapore

The article which was created in 2017 appears to be semi reliable. I Acknowledging that quality can be better than quantity and it does stand true that the sources are indeed fact based. So, despite there only being 6 references, they are not opinion based. The major concern I had with the article as a whole is that is was created in 2017. In the view History tabs the selected revisions are pretty limited. I would there is only abut 25. Which is rather surprising for such a long article. Some of which just happen to be arguments of word usage.

Correction. There are more than 6 references. The others fall under the further reading tabs. This would push me to say reliable. The amount of references used now is more than 20.

Article Evaluation: First Draft

You have significantly expanded this article from where it originally stood, and as drafts go I would probably not think twice about its validity as a Wikipedia article had I come across it naturally. With that said I do have three small but hopefully helpful criticisms of your work. These criticisms regard wording, content, and structure.

I would first recommend making your sentences and paragraphs a tad less verbose (particularly in the opening to the NASCAR Family section), and removing details that may be a bit trivial (such as Dale jr. being known as jr. to fans). I would also recommend shifting some sentences into more direct phrasing where possible (Perhaps using a sentence like "Despite Democrats coining the term, it often empowered Republicans" in place of "Despite the term being coined by Democrats, its use came to empower the Republican party."). Also, I would recommend checking the article for small spelling errors that the Wiki spell checker would miss, like using minuet instead of minute.

My main content critique is to perhaps consider restructuring your "Swing Vote" section entirely. The key source used (9 in your piece) is from a student newspaper's opinion section, where the columnist uses relatively rudimentary statistics to recommend broadly targeting independent voters instead of so-called NASCAR dads. I would recommend building up this section by seeking out more expert analyses of the election with regard to this demographic, or simply striking this portion of the section.

Finally, my structural critique would be to build out the subsection "Opinions of NASCAR's Family Man Idea and Identity" into a full section of its own similar to the "criticism" section of the article Mama Grizzly. I'm not saying it needs to be a section purely for criticism but just that notable public figure opinions are probably worthy of their own section in general.

Best Wishes, Jdicke16 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Economy of Singapore

This article is looking a lot better than it did before. I think the edit added a lot of good information. I really only have a few items of critique:

1. I would probably change some of the sentence formatting. For example, "the region in 1950 saw social unrest which resulted in colonial powers to step back" could perhaps be rewritten as "social unrest in 1950 caused the colonial powers to step back." Not necessarily a huge change, just written a bit more clearly and concisely.

2. The sentence mentioning Stamford Raffles & capitalism could be written with a bit more detail. Who was he and how did he bring capitalism to Singapore? I think 2-3 sentences would suffice for this.

Overall, I think the edit looks good. The writing just needs to be cleaned up a little and a little more information added about Stamford Raffles. Polymoog19 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymoog19 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)