User talk:Efortch/sandbox

Navneet Khaira Peer Review

1.) Yes, this article has neatly laid out points for discussion, and has separated out segments with  individual topics in an organized fashion. 2.) Every segment of the  article maintained a  source, which I  found to be  very useful in tracing back where the information in the  article had came from. I found some of the wording in the personal experience section to maintain strong, and potentially unnecessary wording/statements. Maybe the section talking about her marijuana usage could be reworded? 3.) Yes, the references section does in fact maintain links that work to provide information about where each of the segments came from. 4.)It does not appear to have links to other pages in Wikipedia. Maybe the article could incorporate information from other Wikipedia articles? 5.)I believe that this article could benefit from other links on Wikipedia, and potentially a more neutral tone of voice. Some of the statements throughout the article could be reworded, to indicate a more academic tone. For instance "because" could be reworded to "due to" or "personal life was torn apart" could be changed to "her personal life faced substantial damage". These aren't exact changes that need to be made, but they may help in revising the article :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkhaira (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! I made minor edits, relating to sentence structure/wording.

Other comments First sentence under personal experience definitely needs a source to avoid the article sounding biased/ in her favor, especially if boyfriend is being blamed or accused.

Not sure if I will put the messages project and her book under one subheading, the line about a parents message can be in the award section since it’s just a line? not too sure Also first line in this segment is quite unclear.

Some statements need a source. others would be more helpful Need? information on her sons status’ while she was in prison

Maybe? her own company Women in Transition have a website? leads workshops .... facilities - source for this statement.

Looks pretty good! I made minor edits, relating to sentence structure/wording.

Other comments First sentence under personal experience definitely needs a source to avoid the article sounding biased/ in her favor, especially if boyfriend is being blamed or accused.

Not sure if I will put the messages project and her book under one subheading, the line about a parents message can be in the award section since it’s just a line? not too sure Also first line in this segment is quite unclear.

Some statements need a source. others would be more helpful Need? information on her sons status’ while she was in prison Maybe? her own company Women in Transition have a website? leads workshops .... facilities - source for this statement. Nanaofori-atta (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Nana
 * same comments, forgot to sign

Jonathan Honore'

1.	The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents?

- The lead gives a clear overview and is informative.

2.	The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors?

- Most of the statements have a source. The writing is at times neutral but when speaking on her personal experiences it moves towards objective. Some of the sentences could be more cohesive.

3.	Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest?

- There are relevant links to other pages that make sense. You could include a link to her current organization.

4.	Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest?

- The external links match up with the content. There is a lot of them and they all are relevant no need for other links to describe the content unless you come across more.

5.	What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons?

- This is a very solid page, it consists of facts and objective writing describing her life occurrences. It adheres to the guidelines and she is living person.

Heba Hajj Peer Review:

1. The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents? The lead provides a good overview and introduction to the subject.

2.             The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors? Very well-sourced, every fact is cited, as well as every location, school etc. Looks like the last sentence of the activism section is not sourced.

3.             Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? The other wiki pages links are well sourced. But seems like they’re only linked in the first paragraph, could link other wiki pages for the rest of the article.

4.             Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? Yes, the external links make sense. Linked in may not be a reliable resource, is there any way info from it could be cross checked with another source?

5.             What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons? Great page overall! I appreciate the format and organization of information.

Amalia's Peer Review
1.	The article has a good lead. The first section grabs the reader’s attention immediately. The section gives a good summary of the important information from the article without going into too much detail.

2. 	The writing is neutral and has reliable sources. Nearly every sentence is attached to a source, except for the last sentence in the activism section (which Heba also pointed out). My only criticism here is that the heading “personal experience” is kind of vague and doesn’t give the reader a good idea of what to expect in this section.

3.	There are only links in the lead section, but I’m not sure where else they could be inserted. Each of the links is related and makes sense.

4.	There are external links, which seem relevant and comprehensive. You could add in more if you do additional research, but I think they are fine as it is now.

5.	Other than inserting a photo, the article looks great! Very organized and well written. Aac144 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Abby's Peer Review
1. I think the lead gives a pretty clear overview of what is to come later in the page! It is brief but gives enough detail for the viewer. 2. It seems like the writing is well-sourced. They seem to be pulling from multiple sources and cite them clearly. I would recommend maying citing a few more times in the first sentences of each section because it is missing clear citations of where the information is coming from. 3. There are a few links to other pages in the lead section that makes sense and clearing reference other topics. If there is a wikipedia page for her Messages Project, then I would suggest linking to it. 4. I think it the links to her Messages Project would be valuable. I would also recommend trying to site to CNN’s website on the Hero Award page because they might have more information or a good description of what it is. But overall, the links to external sources are present 5. I think this is off to a great start. Most of the writing is very informative and well sourced. However, the description of the 55 prison sentence being “hefty” is more of an opinion rather than an unbiased fact. Overall, I think the piece follows the Wikipedia guidelines pretty well and will be finalized with the addition of some photos and links! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asauvs (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Steph's Peer Review
1. The lead provides a good overview of LeCroy’s life and works. The first sentence in particular, provides a comprehensive summary of her activities. Potential to include a brief overview of ‘The Messages Project’ and ‘A Parents Message’. 2. Writing is well-sourced, with citations at the end of every sentence. Some minimal bias – i.e. A strong and healthy family connection not only improves the quality of life for the child, but decreases the likelihood that a crime will be committed following their release from prison

And

LeCroy when she was released, and inspired her to help others like her- good people who made a bad mistake 3. Links to other pages i.e. location and university which are helpful. 4. No external links other than citations, which makes sense for the given material. 5. Perhaps greater expansion on LeCroy’s book – A Parent’s Message?