User talk:Hao Duong/sandbox

Your beginning doesn’t describe the article at all you kind of just dive right into what the autho was talking about in the article and what they were missing. I think you can summarize the article at the beginning so that the reader knows what they will be reading about. Make this separate from the content so that you don’t just go straight into the content. As for your organization, I think that you should break your article into sections. It went from response to facts about the topic and although there is useful information, you have to break it up for the reader. Add definitions and more facts about what masculinity is and what it means and how the author describes it before critiquing his thoughts. It is wonderful you’re using content directly from the source and that you add personal thoughts about the article. I did not see a lot of siting throughout your article so maybe add some additional sources.

I have emailed your peer review because the template does not show up here. -Jordyn

Sean McDonough Peer Evaluation: Introductory Sentence: I could not find a introductory sentence. Maybe try taking the article out of the bullet points so it reads more like an article. Summary: It is hard to discern one section from another because it's all put together in bullet points. You can copy and paste the wikipedia article into your sandbox and work on it from there or only bring in specific sections if you just want to work on that but when you bring the article in it makes it look more complete. Context: Again it was hard to tell what was the introduction from what was the body. Organization Pt. 1: The lines that weren't in bullet points makes me think those are division in sections but I wasn't sure. Organization Pt. 2: It was hard to tell your organization because of the bullet points and all small text. You can input different sizes for fonts or make different sections for each part of your information. If you need help with that check the training modules. Content Pt. 1: Added topics about programs that relate to the wikipedia article. Content Pt. 2: You've covered projects well but maybe see if you can fill out the people section of the article or create a new section of information. Content Pt. 3: Most of the information added is about projects/initiatives. Try to diversify what information you're adding. Content Pt. 4: You do well at writing without conversational speaking and the information you added sounds unbiased. Content Pt. 5: There isn't really a voice and it is more information given to you. Content Pt. 6: You've got that part covered. Citations: I didn't find any usable citations. Sources Pt. 1: No sources cited. Sources Pt. 2: No sources cited. Sources Pt. 3: No sources cited. Completeness: There are no sources cited and no reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcdonough827 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)