User talk:Jventura03/sandbox

Peer review
Good start, however needs more information. Suggested things to add or to search for are: more recent news (the newest thing is 1986), see if the countries signed anything else since the Contadora Act for peace and cooperation of Central America, and if the countries involved changed. Also a section could be added about the good that have been doing over the years. Having one link (although that link works. Great job!) you may want to look for some more. Here are some that may come of use for you. http://www.riogrp.com/about/ http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/rio-group/ http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/gjhdq_665435/dqzzywt_665451/2633_665453/2634_665455/t15539.shtml Overall, with some work it can be done really well. Good job so far! (Ajcutler (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

Thank you so much! Your links helped me a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jventura03 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ryan's peer review
Your article provides the reader with a great neutral take on what the Rio Group is, and its political implications on Latin American and Caribbean regions. However, a lot more could be added to make this article more complete. You’ll probably want to continue developing your article by creating different sections focusing on the history of the creation of the Rio Group, providing the reader with more context in identifying specific factors and issues which transpired in these regions which led to the groups conception. (I.e. Which political relationships were tumultuous in these regions prior to the creation of the Rio Group, and what problems arose from these strained relationships?) Was the implementation of this group met with any additional blowback or controversy from other states? Try creating another section dedicated to the controversy of creating the Rio Group, and the potential challenges it continues to face.

Your neutral, and talented writing style is heavily undermined by the lack of sources and citations that are used throughout the course of this article. You have one source so far, but are missing citations which are required by the facts you are laying out over the course of the first three sentences of your first paragraph, and your first two sentences in the third paragraph. What you are writing can’t be deemed as being credible unless you back your claims up.

Overall, your first draft is very well written, but would be even better with more sources, citations and a tweaked structure with categories focusing on the historical context of the Rio Group, and its controversial implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpmcdonald (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan! I worked on that, now I have more information and more links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jventura03 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Article Evaluation
This article describing "The Rio Group" is off to a strong start with its research and content. It is properly cited at the bottom of the page of the research that was found in creating this article and there is also proper headings and coding created to highlight certain words that can bring the reader to various other wikipedia pages from this one. The article remains free of any biases or persuasiveness and stays direct in remaining factual to the research findings. However, the article is quite short in length and could use more content to help build the article further. There are a few grammar errors that could use editing such as run on sentences and lack of fluidity in certain areas that are crucial to a professional article. Otherwise, the article is off to a good start for its draft and just needs to add more editing and content in time for the final draft due date.

Thanks! I am working on that

Michael Kennedy's Peer Review
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are no real "viewpoints" represented yet, only the bare facts. When developing the article further, make sure to use a variety of sources when dealing with things with multiple viewpoints! It should not be such a big problem for this article, though.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Good job using the Rio Group web page as a source! It is good in that it provides general information on the subject. When expanding the article, I would advise not to take any subjective or controversial from the Rio Group page, though, as it is not an impartial source.

The other two sources are fine, however perhaps consider providing another source for the Contadora act. The PDF is used without much citation or context and can be considered unreliable. Are there any academic or popular sources?

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The sources are appropriate overall. The information provided is not yet political/controversial, merely factual, and so problems with bias have not arisen yet.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

It all seems up to date. I was wondering, though, does the Rio Group still hold meetings? When will the next meeting be? Is it planned yet? Also, what is the geo-political purpose of the Rio Group? This is an interesting area to explore which will reveal its real relevance to world. What type of international organization is it? Is it similar to the EU (supranational)? Is it merely a trade organization? How does it compare to NAFTA? Mexico is a member of both. Is it tied to Pan-Latin American aspirations?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piledriver Waltz (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hollystyles16 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Thanks Michael! I am working on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jventura03 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)