User talk:Dawsynmarsh11/sandbox

Ashley James - Peer Review
Ashley James Wikipedia Project Peer Review

1. The Lead Section: Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic? The lead section within the original does provide a description on the topic, however, the sandbox version of revisions does not include a lead section. It is unclear if they plan on utilizing the existing lead section that is in the original Wiki page, or if they plan to make any changes.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major section? If they are not using the original, there is no lead section. If they are planning on using the original, it is much more concise and clear than their current document. It would be a good idea if they expanded on this, if they are able to flesh out the information and basics in regards to this topic to give the reader a better understanding of The House of Representatives.

Has the lead been updated to reflect new content added by the group? I think that they are trying to update the lead section, possibly, the more I look at their information in conjunction with the original. However, the layout of their sandbox lacks organization and it is unclear where the paragraphs or information that they are currently working on will be added to the overall document.

Is the lead concise or overly detailed? The lead within the original lacks information, while the paragraphs within the sandbox are too vague or are lacking intent. It is hard to define where the information that they are adding to the sandbox will be input within the document

2. Content: Is the content added relevant to the topic? There is a lot of content within the sandbox page that appears to be re-wording of information that is included on the original page. I think that their attempt was to update this information to make it more up-to-day, possibly. However, the lack of flow and organization to the information the sandbox makes it hard to determine their goal in regards to the new information that they are working on adding.

Is the content added up-to-date? They are trying to add new information within the first paragraph. They cited 2019 session information and bills being introduced. However, this would not be a lead section and must be getting added somewhere else, possible under as new session category?

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The beginning sentences to the second paragraph is just slight rewording from Ballotopedia, and I does not appear to be correctly reworded. They they go into rules, and that seems like its two separate topics that do not belong in the same paragraph unless there is a further point that has not been made.

3. Tone and balance Is the content added neutral? Yes, I do not notice any bias related statements or verbiage within their paragraphs on the sandbox.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? There aren’t many viewpoints represented or topics outlined that I can specifically state that are being overrepresented. Although, if you consider what is already being stated in the original and what is being stated in the sandbox, there is unneeded repetition which can be omitted.

4. Sources and references Is all the new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is a lot of good information that thy are attempting to add, however, the are lacking sourcing of new information.

Are the sources thorough? The sources that they are using to retrieve information from are good sources with thorough and reliable information.

Are the sources current? Yes, the sources appear to be current to the topic that they are working to expand upon within their Wiki document.

Check a few links: do they work? Yes, all links work! The sources checked are: The Idaho Press, The IdahoStatesman, Ballotpedia, Legislature.idaho.gov, Govtrack.us (Used twice, needs corrected to once), and Simpson.house.gov.

5. Organization Is the content added well-written i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No, the content I not concise, clear, and easy to read. They are lacking organization and the paragraphs are discombobulated from one another. There is no clear viewpoint and transitions between jumps in topics to create a readable document at this time.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I do not see grammatical or spelling errors that are blatant.

Is the content added well-organized i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, there is no organization or sections added to the new material to reflect major points to the topic that the group is attempting to add. It is unclear what points or topic areas they intend to expand upon.

6. Images and media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A – No images added at this time.

Are the images well-captioned? N/A – No images added at this time.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A – No images added at this time.

7. Overall impressions Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article i.e. is the article more complete?

Unfortunately, due to the lack of organization or outlaying of direct topics I am left with uncertainty. No the revisions in progress have not made the original article more complete nor has it increased the overall quality of the article without further alterations and expansion.

What are the strengths of the content added? They have 8 sources for the 3 paragraphs that they are working on, which is a decent amount of sourcing that will be added to the document once the information and topics being expanded are clarified to a further degree.

How can the content be improved? My main feedback that I can give to help improve this group moving forward is to create an outline of the current information and the anticipated revision information and incorporate this information into your sandbox to drive your revisions and information sourcing moving forward.

Where does your new information fit into the original or where are you planning on replacing information with your revised information? There is a lack of intent within the sandbox with leaves me as a peer reviewer somewhat confused as I am unsure of what is being added and where.

The information that is attempting to be added, isn’t necessarily bad – I’m just not sure where it belongs or where it will be added to the document and the three paragraphs are separate topics. Understanding your organization in conjunction with the organization of the original document will help give your sandbox clarity and may help improve the information that you will be adding to the topic and page in the future. �
 * The Wiki talk has omitted all the formatting within my word document that I added to increase the readability of my comments with Prof. Britzman’s outline of peer review topics. If you would like a word version of this e-mailed instead of accessing these comments through the Wiki talk function, please e-mail me at: anjames@lcmail.lcsc.edu.

Anjames342 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

McKenna's Peer Review
McKenna Stover Wikipedia Project Peer Review: House of Representatives 1.	The Lead Section •	Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic? It is hard to find which sentence is supposed to be the introductory sentence. In a sense it doesn’t seem to have a sentence that leads into what they are supposed to be included in the topic, it just kind of jumps into the information. •	 Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major section? I am confused as to which paragraph is supposed to be the lead or if all of them are supposed to be included under the lead. It isn’t very structured when it comes to information. It seems like they are just trying to reword information from the article itself, yet what is already added into the main article does a precise job of already explaining the information. •	Has the lead been updated to reflect new content added by the group? It does appear that they attempted to add some new information but it does seem like they struggled to format it of where they would add it into the original article and pieces of the information seem to be repeating from the sources. •	Is the lead concise or overly detailed? Since it is confusing to figure out if they are keeping the lead from the initial document itself or if they added a lead into their sandbox but it’s just not very well-formatted. I would say organization and more details concerning their initial topic would greatly add to the lead.

2.	Content •	Is the content added relevant to the topic? Some of the content is relevant but other pieces seem to not hit the mark of what they are trying to get across in their paragraphs. •	Is the content added up-to-date? The content added does seem to be up-to-date. •	Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The information provided could be useful but with the right lead-ins and the correct transitions. The information seems very choppy with how it is connected. I would reword a few things and try to add transitions between information.

3. Tone and balance •	Is the content added neutral? All of the content is neutral and fact-based. •	Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? All claims are neutral, there is no heavy bias. •	Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? All viewpoints seem to be represented proportionally.

4. Sources and references •	Is all the new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All of the content is backed by reliable sources it appears. •	Are the sources thorough? The sources do appear to be thorough with their information. •	Are the sources current? The sources do seem to be current. •	Check a few links: do they work? Yes, the sources I clicked on worked.

5. Organization

•	Is the content added well-written i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content itself is pretty clear in each sentence, a few things could sound better with simple rewording. The content overall would be clear and concise with better organization and better sectioning of topics before moving on to the next one. •	Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I can tell there aren’t any spelling errors. There doesn’t seem to be any grammatical errors that I can see either. •	Is the content added well-organized i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content isn’t very organized. The topics seem to differ within each content with no clear transition. There is no clear major point for each topic. A simple restructure of the paragraph could greatly help with the organization.

6. Images and media •	No Images

7. Overall impressions •	Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article i.e. is the article more complete? The content added a level of completion but there still needs to be adjustments to improve the overall quality of the article. •	What are the strengths of the content added? One of the strengths is all the information seems to be current and unbiased which is important for the content. Another strength is the content added does seem to add more information but pieces of it do seem to be from the original article. •	How can the content be improved? The content could greatly improve from rewording and restructuring of each paragraph. Overall organization could be improved. Focusing on transitions within each paragraph and the flow from topic to topic. As well as establishing the main points of the topic and a lead in to discuss what we are meant to be reading about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnstover (talk • contribs) 04:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Shelby
1. Lead Section It is hard to find the true meaning of what the Idaho House of Representatives is in the lead section of the article. I would suggest talking about the house of reps in a more general manner before talking about the specifics of the sessions. The lead does talk about updated materials and events. I would say take out some of the specific details of the lead section and talk about them later on in the article. 2. Content The content of the article is recent and relevant to the general topic. When starting a new paragraph try to talk about what the purpose of that paragraph will be, rather then talking about something specific and not explaining the main purpose of the content first. I would suggest taking out the content such as when the house meets and talking about the times. Also, try to avoid saying “they” to many times, instead put the house. 3. Tone and Balance This article is extremely neutral and has no specific opinion that it is trying to push on the reader. It only list important facts and things to know about the Idaho House of Representatives. I also think that all of the points that they talk about are represented equally and with smooth transitions. 4. Sources and References The sources are relevant and seem to match all of the content. I did try a couple of the sources and they are related to the article and give updated facts and knowledge about the subject that is discussed. 5. Organization I would suggest trying to make the paragraphs less chunky. Try using transition words that make the sentences flow better between subjects. There are a few small grammatical errors. I would also suggest picking one topic and only talking about that throughout the paragraph. 6. Images and Media N/A 7. Overall Impression Overall I thought your article had interesting and necessary content. There are a few things that would improve the article but they are easily fixable. The articles content talks about the house rules, who is in the house, and many other requirements and goals that the house has. I find the article interesting and full of knowledgeable content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoncrief (talk • contribs) 07:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)