User talk:Juanito124/sandbox

Danielle's Peer Review
There is a lot of good information in this article. Several different sections that are clearly defined with information that appears to be fact based and written without bias. It also appears that though there may be a lot of non cited items, they are being worked out and you have already found several new sources to edit the information already in the article as well as sources that will help you expand sections such as the legacy section mentioned here. When reading over the lead part of the article I felt as though the information contained there was mainly about the Kulaks and collectivization, perhaps a little more information in regards to industry would be helpful there as there is a large section in the body of the article dedicated to that. I would like to read more about prison labor as well as any more information that could be gathered on the success of the Five Year Plan, if there is anymore information that can be found from reliable sources for either of those topics. There are a lot of good sources here, that is definitely something I would like to incorporate more of with the article that I am currently contributing to.Dproland (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Review
Your group has some great sourcing and contributions for the Five Year Plan article. Similarly, your group has demonstrated a well thought out plan to improve the article, though I would have liked to see more of a draft. The references look strong, as well as from sources that will give a well balanced and neutral position for your work. Carr63 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hunter Skilling Review
I know that this is a work in progress, but keep in mind that we are all learning this at the same time so by no means am I considering myself a Wikipedia expert. With that being said, I thought I would point out some things that my group has been doing, which makes is easier for us in the long run. From what I've seen so far, everyone in your group has done a great job of letting us know which areas of the article that they plan to expand upon. Things that I'm not saying you're guilty, but I plan to watch out for on my own project, includes only using reliable scholarly articles and to keep your work free from bias and personal perspectives. I would suggest that you open your article with a short, clear, concise statement that explains the outcome I should expect from going to your page. Im still a little confused a little on what exactly your goal is here, like am I reading about the first FYP, or things that happened during all of the Five Year Plans? Most importantly, as I aforementioned, is that you define each section (by what each group member chose) with a header that will give your page a clear structure that allows the reader to define a timeline or sequence of events.

Great job so far you guys!!! Huntsky01 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward to completing the article
Hello guys,

I was just wondering how y'all want to move forward with our group article. I have expanded the Legacy portion of the article and would love to get your input on my work as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevytevtev (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)