User talk:Hlydon

Peer Review 2
Article looks well done and you really added value to this page to get it started.

Lead Section: The first paragraph of the lead section does an excellent job of stating the basic facts of Toddsville, including the interesting part about them being unincorporated and the post office closing.

Structure: The structure is really good here and I love the order of the different sections.

Balance: The balance is good, my only suggestion would be to include more in the "Demographics" section as that is the first one after the lead and seems a little low on content.

Neutral: The information doesn't seem to have any bias behind it, just states some facts about Toddsville.

Sources: Very comprehensive list of sources that shows real research went into this article. Joecalabro (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Hlydon, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review #1
The Lead Section: The lead section was short and concise. It is a very detailed subject, as I later saw, so this section is a good pre-cap.

Structure: The organization flows very nicely and makes sense. There are a few grammatical errors, just misplaced commas, nothing major.

Balance: This is all about and only about Duolingo, even the business model and the changes made.

Neutral: The article is in neutral tone. Any person who uses this app is a "user", which is appropriate. My guess on the editor's perspective is perhaps he has used it before? Still neutral and informative.

Reliable sources: There are 65 sources listed mostly from journals, magazines, and web addresses. WOW! There has been a lot of info on this subject, which leads me to believe the sources are credible.

Hlydon (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review #2
The Lead Section: The lead section is right on point.

Structure: The sections are organized well. They are ordered in a list, which is very easy to follow.

Balance: This article is what it says. It is about the geology of Iceland. There are many highlighted/link words and some are not. I know very little about geology in general. Would there be a good way to define the non-highlighted words? There is a lot of great information!

Neutral: This article is neutral. I am guessing the editor has an interest in geology and Iceland. The first sentence really captures that Iceland is unique and important to geologists, because of its' location which leads why the geology is what it is.

Reliable sources: There are several sources, mostly peer-reviewed articles, which are reliable. You did a lot of reading!

Hlydon (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review #2
I thought the first sentence of the lead was a good way to introduce the town. I thought that the lead as a whole, however, felt disjointed (ex. "it had a post office" came out of nowhere to me when I was reading the lead for the first time), included unnecessary details, and did not cover the important big ideas about the city that I would typically expect from a brief overview. It also does not have anything to do with the rest of the article, so there was a lack of coherency in the article overall.

I like the ordering and titling of the sections. The ordering feels like the natural order that I would want the information to be structured in if I wanted to learn more about a town. It's clear, however, that the content within each section could use major improvement.

I think that the outline appears to encompass a balance of the different aspects of Toddville. Within each section, however, I think that too much emphasis is given to specific organizations/buildings in the town. For example, I think there needs to be more general information about the different organizations, rather than just focusing in depth on specific ones to the point of excess detail that is off topic (learning about Toddville, Iowa).

There are some instances of words/phrases that are common red flags with regards to neutrality. It says that people are mostly Caucasian, but gives no statistics to back it up or about the ethnicities of the remaining demographic makeup.

There are sources cited throughout to support the information in the article. There are not many neutral sources containing diverse information. Some of them are promotional content, and some are statistics. That being said, there may not be a lot of scholarly, academic sources available on this particular place. I suggest looking for more sources on Toddville so that you can compile a more balanced, comprehensive, and useful assortment of information for the article.

Bbkesler (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)