User talk:Hayleyalvarez/sandbox

Shelby Lawrence Peer Review
The lead for this article is about the state of Idaho's legislature. The leading sentence for this article does not describe what the article is going to be about, instead it dives right into details about the different aspects of the Idaho legislature. This lead for this article includes a brief description of the articles major section. I believe the lead for this article is rich with detail. Aslo, I think that this lead has been updated to reflect the new information that this group has added. All of the information added by this group is relevant to the topic. Additionally, the information added by this group is up to date. However, I think that this group could add information about the Idaho legislature’s services that they offer. They could find this information, by looking up the Idaho legislatures website, and click the legislative services tab. None of the information that they have added seems to be out of place. However, I think they could add more information regarding the Idaho legislature. The group has added neutral content to their article. Also, None of the claims are biased at all, they just state facts. However, I think that they should get rid of the sentence “In the afternoon and early in the morning meetings are scheduled so it doesn’t interfere with daily sessions.”, as it is irrelevant information. The sources they included in this article are reliable, as they are official government websites. All of their sources are very thorough, as well as up to date. All of these links work just fine. However, I think that they can find more information from different scholarly websites. The information they have provided is clear and concise. However, I think they could use more sophisticated language. I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors. Additionally, the information they have added needs to be broken down into clear sections that reflect the major topic. It is my impression that the information that this group has added, has overall improved the quality of this article. Some strengths of their article is that it gives specific information about how many people are in the House and Senate for Idaho. I think this content can improve by adding information such as the services the legislature offers, how many Democrats and Republicans are on the Idaho legislature, and if they add pictures I think it would capture the reader's attention more. Finally, I really liked the work this group has put into there article.

Ryanne's peer review
The lead sentence tells us when the Idaho Legislature was formed but not exactly what it is. Maybe add the time it began to a later spot in your first paragraph. The first paragraph does a great job of telling us what the Idaho legislature is and more about it. The content added was all information that seemed appropriate and worked well in the article. The content seems up to date and all relevant. The content added was all neutral with no added opinions. All the information was informative and was not biased. One thing I would suggest is using more than just one source. The one source works and is very reliable but adding more would make the overall wikipedia article more reliable. The information is organized and easy to read. As far as I can tell there are no grammatical errors. I like how the article is split into the past, present and future. That was a great way to keep the paragraphs organized. After adding one or two more sources and adding more to the first sentence to create a strong opening paragraph the addition will be really good. Overall great job. Ryannetravis (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Ryanne Travis

Rayanna Buttenhoff Peer Review
Lead Section: The lead section dives right into when the Idaho Legislature was established and when they began sessions. Although this is useful introduction information, the lead section does not specifically describe what Idaho Legislature is. I understand that the existing Wikipedia article already has an introduction sentence that contains a lot of detail so I believe the information you added is useful and ads to the existing introduction. Content: The content added to the article is relevant especially for today’s society. I really appreciate how you added when the 2020 session will begin. What I would suggest is to go more in depth. For example, I would like to know what other responsibilities they have and how they are divided within the Legislature. Also try adding a little more information of the structure of the session. What do their agendas typically look like and how do they tackle their agenda. Tone/Balance: You all did a very good job with maintaining a neutral tone. There are no bias viewpoints in the information you added to the existing articles. All the information is factual and useful. Sources/References: The one source you have listed is very reliable, given it is direct information about the Idaho Legislature. I understand it might be difficult to find other sources with such a specific topic, but I would try to find scholar articles that contain information about your topic. Organization: Your article is free from grammatical error and easy to read. I did realize that you jump from history to present to future back to present. It might be useful if you add sections such as Structure, Upcoming Session Dated, History etc. Also, your article might sound just a little choppy due to the abundance of short sentences. To fix this maybe try to combine sentences. Overall Impressions: The information you have added is all useful and helpful to know. I think it will elevate the existing article. I would just focus on organization. Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgbuttenhoff5565 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Liz Ragan's Peer Review
The Lead Section: This article doesn’t have a great lead section. It jumps into responsibilities and then it also doesn’t smoothly transition to other topics on the subject. The lead does give understanding on the topic.

The Content: This article has potential on the provided content. The article needed in text citations and a list of all sources used.

Tone and Balance: The article needs smoother transitioning, instead of jumping from conclusion to conclusion. This article did a great job on strictly sticking to facts and staying away from opinions!

Sources and References: The article needs all of the sources that were used. There’s only one on the article.

Organization: The article has great facts/information, just not so good transitioning. It is not smooth whatsoever, jumping from one thought to the next.

Overall Impressions: Honestly, I believe the information has great potential. It just needs to be organized better with smoother transitioning to make reading it not so hard. The article does a really good job staying away from bias information and opinions. Also, this article is chunked all in one, I think it would look better and read better if it was spaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.22.223 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)