User talk:Engl101sankey

1) Did your partner follow the format guidelines for a Wikipedia article (contains a lead and a reference list, the right things are bolded, section headings are correct, etc.)? If not, what needs to be altered to make it look like a Wikipedia article?

He did a really good job of following the format guidelines for a wikipedia article. A table of contents could be added along with some pictures. Dividing up the sections more might also help a reader find what they are looking for faster.

2) Is the article well-written? (“its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard”) Select one sentence that you consider to be well-written. Also select at least one sentence where the writing could be clarified or polished up to make the article more interesting and informative.

This article is very well written and easy to understand.

Well-written:

Needs work:

3) Is the article comprehensive? (“it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context”) List one section of the article you find to be very comprehensive. Also list one section of the article that needs to be expanded or contextualized better to make the article more complete and persuasive.

Comprehensive:

Needs work:

4) Is the article well-researched? (“it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature”) If the sources listed are from websites, follow the links. List each website and include whether you find it to be credible or not.

Websites:

5) Is the article neutral? (“it presents views fairly and without bias”) Does it fulfill the Wikipedia ideal of Neutral Point of View (NPOV)? Include any sentences that appear to be biased.

Biased sentences:

6) Is the article of the correct length? (“It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail”) Does it meet the minimum length requirement for the class of 2 pages of text double spaced?