User talk:Irhollan/sandbox

Aelindqu: Mercy Hospital Peer Review
A good Wikipedia article should have a lead section that is easy to understand, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliable sources. After reading through what you have written I notice that you do not have very many sources listed although the ones you do have listed seem reliable. I can understand that there may be a lack of information available because we also ran into this same problem. The article does a good job of explaining why in fact Mercy Hospital closed. I was impressed that you were able to find that the hospital burned a baby due to a defective incubator. This article would be a great connection to our article on Johnnie Ruth Clarke. The lead sentence is strong and right to the point. There is clear evidence of why the Hospital was shut down. Even though it is all relevant, there is very little content. I think that more sources and picture would really benefit this article. Signed AnnaAelindqu (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review, Amanda Freda, 11/5/18
'''What does the article do well? Is there anything from the review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?''' The article has a really well developed closure section. You did a great job of expanding upon things already included in the original wiki article. '''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' As of now, I do not have any suggestions for the author to change the article. I saw that there were notes about expanding upon other sections, like the Johnnie Ruth Clark Health Center, construction, and renovation. When expanding upon these sections, I would suggest that the authors continue doing so with as much detail as possible to strengthen the article. What is the most important thing the author could do to improve the article or draft? The most important thing the author could do to improve this article is to gather as much information from as many reliable sources as possible. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? After reading this article, I don't see much applicable to add to my own, but I have been thinking about the different ways I could expand on my article by adding another section.

Amandafreda (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)