User talk:Joshua Gramley/sandbox

4/20/2019 Evaluation by WavesOfAmur

 * Points: 45/40
 * Grade: 113%

Overall commentary: I did not want to include a comment for each piece of grading rubic because I thought it would be redundant, and I find your article to be very well edited! I think the information you've gathered here will seamlessly integrate into the original article, personally, hence why I gave you perfect scores! The attention to detail you have is so much greater in comparison to what I had managed to write about in Cordoba, and I don't think that there is anything immediately in need of change that you may not already have changed with other people's suggestions, already. I truly think it is perfect, but, naturally, someone more knowledgeable will probably disagree. Regardless, excellent work!!

Spelling/Grammar Exceeds Expectations (4.5)

Language Exceeds Expectations (4.5)

Organization Exceeds Expectations (4.5)

Coding Perfect (4.5)

Validity Exceeds Expectations (4.5)

Completion Exceeds Expectations (4.5) Relevance Exceeds Expectations (4.5) - It is astonishing just how relevant the info you've provided is! From my point of view, it seems like the perfect pieces of info that could be fit into a brief summary about any given subtopic, you've done a tremendous job!

Sources Exceeds Expectations (4.5)

Citations Exceeds Expectations (4.5)

References Exceeds Expectations (4.5)

4/20/2019 Evaluation by User:BethanyJJohnson
Points: 41 Grade: 103%

Spelling/Grammar - 4.5, no mistakes that I see

Language - 4

Organization - 4

Coding - 4.5

Validity - 4

Completion - 4

Relevance - 4

Sources - 4

Citations - 4

References - 4

This is a really well written contribution to the article! BethanyJJohnson (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

4/23/19 Evaluation by GbrooksPDXStudent

 * Points: 43

Spelling/Grammar Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Loved the extra places you fixed the grammar and helped the sentence structure flow. No mistakes found on your edits or the article in general.

Language Meets Standard: 4.5

Found great uses of tone and proper word choice in approaching a lot of the lists and information. Well done!

Organization Meets Standard: 4

Could certainly use work with more emphasis in formatting the timeline of music to flow and not have two historic sections, followed by a modern recounting of the city, and only afterward a section beginning with "Nowadays".

Coding Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Loved the use of the bolding text to indicate changes, great use of coding.

Validity Meets Standard: 4

All information appears both solid and valid in its appearance and assured facts.

Completion Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Tons of information on the music scene, history of it, and impact today. Excellent!

Relevance Exceeds Standard: 4.5

I can't say I'll ever visit Cremona but, given the wealth of knowledge and importance in 12 century to modern music, this information will prove quite valuable should I ever choose to go.

Sources Meets Standard: 4

Many of the sources are both credible and academic.

Citations Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Citations are both present and in perfect format.

References Meets Standard: 4

References are all accounted for and in a correctly pre-defined format.

GbrooksPDXStudent (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

5/7/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Points: 41/40
 * Grade: 102.5%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.

Language
Meets standard.
 * The seignory exerpt is good, but it makes the sentence a bit too long. It would be better to break that up a little. Maybe true for some other sentences as well.

Organization
Meets standard.

Coding
Meets standard.

Validity
Meets standard.

Completion
Exceeds standard. Wow, you've really written more than what was called for. That's awesome!

Relevance
Meets standard.