User talk:Fisaowen/sandbox

Article evaluation feedback
Really nice work on this! You provide a nice blend of observations about what the article's strengths are as well as ways it could be further improved (which can sometimes be difficult with articles this robust, even if they are rated as C-class rather than a higher quality rating). You do a particularly nice job exploring and considering the specific sources used in this article and noting the lively and varied conversations happening on the talk page. The final question (about it being different than how we've talked about it in class) doesn't quite apply to this class (since we aren't talking about just one topic), but I appreciate your thoroughness of response! Nicoleccc (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Choose a topic feedback
This is a really interesting range of articles! I do have a few specific notes for each one:

Countertop: This one gives me a little pause, as it's not clearly rated and seems to have undergone significant development over the past year or two. I would also caution you away from referencing websites like Houzz or The Spruce as they seem focused on design ideas and brief, non-authoritative articles. If you are interested in pursuing this one, I would recommend reaching for a couple of the specific materials sections that need more development (or a couple of sections that look interesting to you) and digging into more specific manufacturing, methods, and material-specific concerns research for those narrower focal points.

Harry Potter: Wizards Unite: This one looks like an excellent option, and your sources so far seem appropriate for it. I don't see you mention what you would want to improve in it specifically, but the Pokémon go article might be a good one to reference for ideas of what could still be added, as they seem like somewhat similar games in their base structure.

Tibetan Terrier: Also a solid option. The AKC and TTCA sources are sound, but a search for this breed in PetMD mostly brings up clickbait ("5 breeds that are perfect for you" sort of articles) with no clear author, references, or date of publication, so I would probably move away from that site as a source. My biggest question on this article is whether you will be able to find enough quality sources (as AKC and breed-specific clubs often only have broad overviews) to flesh it out meaningfully.

Of these three, my first thought is that the Harry Potter game one is your best bet, but in reality whatever one you can find the broadest variety of good sources for and have a clear plan for how to improve it is probably your best choice. Nicoleccc (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tibetan Terrier Review
Looking at the tibetan terrier rough draft article, it looks great. The introduction is clear, easy to understand, and lays the way for the information to be presented. That being said this draft has a clear structure and balanced content. The structure is arranged in a cohesive manner, not jumping from one topic to another. Everything looks like it is written in a neutral non-biased tone. There was plentiful informational sources used. Although I noticed one of the sources doesn't lead to the information. Which I believe is source 3, that is used at the beginning introduction section.

Article Draft Peer Review
After reading both the original article and your draft I can see lots of improvement in the neutrality piece, and a great variety of sources added. I think that your article does a great draft covering the important points for this bread, both for just general pet owners and owners that pull more towards the show arena. Chari.Lottie (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking over your article I feel you have made good improvements to the article. Although, I was somewhat confused why whole sections were completely rewritten with the same information. Maybe consider making smaller changes to sections of the article that are incorrect or don't flow instead of changing whole paragraphs. Overall, I thought the new information added was good supporting the page and going with the information already present. --Wyattjenkerson (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Article draft feedback
You've introduced some good new sources so far in your article draft! Some things to keep in mind as you continue adding to and revising this work are:
 * The goal in improving articles isn't to completely re-word the existing material. If you don't have a particular reason to undo previous editors' work (it's demonstrably inaccurate, or the language is unclear, or the information is irrelevant to the article, or you're correcting grammar errors, that kind of thing), I would recommend avoiding the removal of or unnecessarily re-wording of existing work.
 * It looks like you're finding some sources that have at least slightly conflicting information with the sources already used in the article. Rather than simply replacing the existing information, this is an opportunity to evaluate both the originally-used source and the one you've located for accuracy, authority, currency, and credibility. This might result in you replacing the current article information with the information from your source, or deciding the previous source is more thorough and credible and therefore leaving the current information as is, or deciding that both are strong sources and incorporating the information from both of them (this might look like a range or an acknowledgement that different sources note different things). One spot I'm seeing this in the current draft is in the life span of the Tibetan terrier--the existing information relies on a study with clear authors and parameters, and your newer source is a website devoted to the breed, so both seem to have some authority. The study is from 2004, so might be outdated, but there is also no indication of the currency or authorship of the small amount of information on the breed site. Both sources have strengths and question marks...what was your process in determining which one is more credible?
 * I'm curious what additional information you're finding in the sources you've located that will help you build on the existing article rather than centering your work on re-phrasing other editors' work. The history section seems like a good candidate for expansion, or a section on grooming. Have you found information about any differences in their characteristics from one place to another? Other significant health issues the breed is prone to?
 * Once you've completed your additions and edits, a close proofread would be beneficial, possibly by reading it aloud. There are some small phrasing bumps that it might be easier to hear than to see (one example: "The double coat with normally described as...." I can't quite parse the "with" in this sentence and am wondering if words are missing or a different word was intended).

Let me know if you have any questions as you continue working on your additions and edits, and I look forward to seeing your polished draft! Nicoleccc (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)