User talk:Cwfagan

I just found this, I'm almost sure we've seen it before, but on the off chance that we haven't: [] This is from the journalism school. Do you think it would help us at all?Sharon Austin 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just edited a bit of the Zoolander page to mention how the name has been inspired by it. I don't know if it helps, but...well, I figured it would give us something else to link to, right?Sharon Austin 21:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEAustin (talk • contribs)

I got the table formatted but I don't think I cited it correctly. If anyone knows how to do it, will you check on it? Carolyn Fagan 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be helpful if we edit the UNC Basketball page to include information about Blue Steel and provide a link in order to direct people to our page. It might otherwise be hard to get any attention. Mfontaine (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I would like to join your group after Mr. Edwards okayed it because my group disbanded. please let me know what the members of the group are currently performing, as I have long followed blue steal and I think I can provide essential information to this wikipedia page.Coreyjweb (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks in order... Pmedward (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The comment and signature you left at User_talk:Michelleparksmudge look great, too. (This is something you'll do more of later in the semester when we start peer reviews for others' Wikipedia entries.) Pmedward (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dion Guy User:Tarheel57
Strengths This is a unique topic. I think this could go well with a little more time. This a good way of making the reader understand what specifically your topic is about. Also,there was nothing bias in your article.

Weaknesses There is much work and information needed. Also it would help if you could add pictures. Lastly, you could organize your article into sections more effectively. It does not look like you have sections, only the one paragraph. I also think you need to elaborate on the reason for coming up with the Blue Steel, how the group came to be. With more publicity lately, you may be able to find additional sources from UNC newspapers and magazines.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheel57 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Brechbue (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well-written- Page looks good so far, gives a good overview of what the topic is about and good sub-headings. Once more information is added to each heading this page will be awesome.

Comprehensive- Very easy to follow, organization should take care of itself when more information is added, pictures would be a great addition.

I think this is an awesome topic and will be a great addition to wikipedia, although information may be limited, more information needs to be added (which is obvious) I think you could make a "media" category that includes press, articles, and reporters, and then make a "social" category that includes t shirts, date auction, twitter, etc. This might organize your information a little better. Brechbue (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Ktmills
Well-written: The introduction for the page is a strong point however the page needs to be further developed as far as text for the different subgroups that you have chosen to work with. It is hard to critique this page due to lack of text however what you have written is well-written.

Comprehensive: Your group did a great job of organizing the information into different relevant subgroups which is imperative for comprehension. I think the group did a great job of identifying the key subgroups that are apart of the more broad topic and the subgroups just need to be more developed, but is a great start. More text is definitely needed.

Well-researched: I think the group needs to focus on doing more research. It looks as though the group has done a good amount of brainstorming but now its time to look into all the areas you have pointed out as being important aspects of your topic. I'm not too familiar with sports however I think you'll be able to get a lot of information from fan based websites and you have ENDLESS amounts of fans right here on campus that you can use as a vital resource! I would also look into maybe tying in blue steel alumnae and see if that will take you anywhere.

Neutral: I didn't sense any form of bias on the page! Good Work!

Formatted appropriated: I think formatting is a weak point right now for this page. I would take a look at Kchubb28 page for a good example of a page that is well formatted. You are off to a great start with organization but you lack the proper formatting.

Ktmills (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review: Jjcooper64
Strenghths: I believe that your group has chosen a topic that is very interesting as well as relevant and important to students on our campus. I enjoy your links to others wikipedia pages that correlate with the futher understanding of your topic, they are very helpful. You have some good ideas in your outline that should allow you to provide huge amounts of information on your wiki page. The introduction seems to be error free and well written.

Weaknesses : Though your introduction paragraph seems to be well written, it seems as though your introduction of "Blue Steel" could be more throughly elaborated upon. One possible solution for elaboration could be briefly discussing the coinage of the term Blue Still. I do not have any insight on you signifigance to others section, however im interested to see how you present this information. Also I do not see any citations, forgive me if I have looked over them. I understand you've not yet gotten to this stage yet, however when you are ready pictures could be a very beneficial addition!

A couple of resource this group could use would be scouting websites. I.E InsideCarolina.com, Scout.com, Rivals.com. You could also use the DTH website, I believe they had a recent write up.

This wiki page seemed completely unbiased, and accurate. Without resources it seems to lack the authoritative aspect.

Peer Review by backman2013
Well-written: The introduction introduces the reader to a very interesting subject. Clean the language up a bit because it's currently too casual for an encyclopedia entry.

Comprehensive: This seems to be a unique but limited topic. Judging from what is already written and the outline, the article gives the reader plenty of context surrounding the topic. While the extra information about Roy Williams is nice, it might distract the information about Blue Steel.

Well-researched: The page doesn't have any links to outside resources, so it's hard to tell how much research has gone into the topic. That said, the outline speaks to a good amount of research that will be done on the term's creation and usage.

Neutral: The information already written seems a bit like a press release. Avoid writing too positively on the subject. It is possible to inform the reader on a subject one is passionate about without coming off as a too much of a fan.

Formatting: The article seems to be formatted appropriately, although switching the first two subject headings might be beneficial.

Backman2013 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jjcooper64 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Written:The introduction is one of your best written pieces in the paper, it hits on every point that you look into further into the page. However some of the text gets confused and with some editing needs to be done to ensure the text reads smoothly.

Comprehensive:There was very little in-depth analysis that went into this page. For example researching into the players backgrounds of blue steel would help. However I like how you know the beginning of how Blue Steel started.

Well-Researched:There is only one source on this page, while ESPN is a reliable sports source more than one source is important to help remove bias. Also one of the players might be helpful, I am friends with Stewart Cooper if you would ever like to contact him for more information on Blue Steel.

Neutral:The writers describe Blue Steel in a very positive manner and stray away from the neutral perspective.

Formatting:While the article seems properly formatted, the organization and transitions between each topic are very choppy and the page could sound much more professional with clean transitions and organization.

'Hrjones32 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)'

Peer review by kevin reddick
well written-great start with the intro explaining. you hit the right points of everything i was thinking.

comprehensive - I think you do a great job of explaining what the blue steel was because as i was reading i was thinking what does the blue steel mean and you kept me guessing until you mentioned what it was.

well researched- i think it was ok on the research part I have seen this article talking about the same stuff but overall research was ok.

neutral- I think you stayed away from neutral parts

formatting- i think format was good it would be helpful if you had pictures of the guys. Kbreddic (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)