User talk:Katemackie/sandbox

=1st Edit Evaluations (Granada)=

4/23/2019 Evaluation by User:Sackhy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/sandbox#/talk/1 Sackhy (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Points: 40/40 Grade: 100% Spelling/Grammar — No major mistakes in the work — Exceeds standard.

Language — Good use of Proper English, as well as a neutral tone — Exceeds standard.

Organization — The work was easy to follow and had a natural flow — Exceeds standard.

Coding — Good coding — Exceeds standard.

Validity — Good information with reliable sources — Exceeds standard.

Completion — Work was completed — Exceeds standard.

Relevance — 	All the information provided were relevant to the topic. No irrelevant information. — Exceeds standard.

Sources — High quality sources — Exceeds standard.

Citations — Properly formatted — Exceeds standard.

References — Properly formatted — Exceeds standard. Sackhy (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

4/24/2018 Evaluation by User Peter Brandt/Pjbpdx (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Points: 40/40 Grade: 100%

Spelling/Grammar Exceeds standard. Perfect spelling and grammar.

Language[edit] Exceeds standard. Perfect encyclopedic tone and diction.

Organization Exceeds standard. Perfect paragraphs and headers. Information flows well.

Coding Exceeds standard. Perfect code.

Validity Exceeds standard. Solid and well organized information.

Completion Exceeds standard. Complete.

Relevance Exceeds standard. All ideas and information are relevant to the topic.

Sources Exceeds standard. Solid and credible academic resources.

Citations Exceeds standard. Present and in perfect format.

References Exceeds standard. Updated and correct format. Pjbpdx (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

5/4/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty good, but it's searching for a good home on the article, where it is not redundant.


 * Points: 36.5/40
 * Grade: 91.25%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.

Language
Nearly meets standard.
 * "...one cannot ignore..." sounds like a tourist magazine, rather than an encyclopedia.
 * "...in the past may have been..." speculative language.
 * "...the prominent..." should maybe be: "...the predominant..."
 * "Granada holds a dominant culture..." What does this mean?

Organization
Nearly meets standard. Where does this belong in the Granada article? It seems like it could be part of a missing culture section. Much of what is written here is, effectively, already mentioned in the history section on the Reconquista. The page also needs a section on demographics, in which one could put date about different religious groups and their population sizes. However, what you have seems more related to cultural expressions of religion.

Coding
Meets standard.

Validity
Nearly meets standard. You write "Granada holds a dominant culture yet there are still strong aspects of Islam and Judaism that reside in the city today," but without or a clear indication of what this means or evidence to support the assertion.

Completion
Meets standard.

Relevance
Meets standard.
 * You have a great source in the Knott, Krech & Meyer article, but that citation supports a rather dubious sentence. Isn't there something more concrete you could have pulled from that article. There's probably a lot of unused mileage in it.
 * "After Christian rule took over Granada, and Muslims were forced out of the city,..." don't forget that the Jews were also forced out, as the cited source also mentions.

5/15/2018 Evaluation by Pjbpdx
Pjbpdx (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Points: 20/40 Grade: 50%

Spelling/Grammar Meets Standard. Though the way you've structured this sentence is fine, using 'as well' seems a bit forced. "its progressive and strong economy. As well, in 2016, Lisbon became the permanent.."

Language Meets standard

Organization Meet standard.

Coding Meet standard. Looks ok as far as I can tell.

Validity Does not meet standard. Though the sources look reputable, I've been unable to access the full material to see where you pulled info.

Completion Significant Omissions. The four sources you've included seem credible but inaccessible. You're also missing 6 additional sources.

Relevance Meets standard.

Sources Does not meet standard. The sources look to be solid but I'm unable to access them. The fourth source is a direct link to a 'Gale' log-in. Lacking 6 more.

Citations Does not meet standard. Your formatting is appropriately cited but again, can't access.

References Does not meet standard. References seem to be order and automatically generated through wiki but short of assignment requirements.

5/25/2019 Evaluation by User:Sackhy
Points: 40/40 Grade: 100% Spelling/Grammar — No major mistakes in the work — Meets standard.

Language — Maintained a neutral tone — Meets standard.

Organization — Work was easy to follow — Meets standard.

Coding — Coding appears fine — Meets standard.

Validity — Good sources, most were from academic sites — Meets standard.

Completion — Work was completed — Meets standard.

Relevance — 	All the information provided were relevant to the topic. — Meets standard.

Sources — Most sources were academic — Meets standard.

Citations — Properly formatted — Meets standard.

References — Properly formatted — Meets standard.

Sackhy (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

6/3/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Points: 35.5/40
 * Grade: 88.75%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.
 * "...cost-to-income ration..." Omit 'n'
 * "As well as having relationships with large Portuguese companies such as, Portugal Telecom and Electricidade de Portugal." This sentence is an incomplete dependent clause. (The period should be a comma.)

Language
Meets standard.
 * "A recent study done in 2018" does not future-proof your text.
 * The use of the word "booming" lacks some neutrality as well as relative context.

Organization
Does not meet standard. With the material you have added, it seems like this section is now screaming out even more for some organization. It could use a logical sequence of topics and have those topics indicated by headers.

Coding
Meets standard.

Validity
Nearly meets standard.
 * Your paragraph on the Lisbon Summit and the European Social model relies on a source which is reported to have been published in 2010. However, the actual publication date of that article is in 2000. It also says that this summit took place in 2000.
 * Your numbers on the number of CGD branches is outdated, given that your source is nearly 20 years old. According to the CGD's most recent factsheet (September 2018), there were 1068 branches. When dealing with such a number, it is best to at least report on the dating of the information.
 * Less dated, but your information about the Portuguese/Lisboner economic strength is also something that is probably best not reported in the body of a Wikipedia article, since it is subject to tremendous variation over time.

Completion
Meets standard. You have enough raw meat here.

Relevance
Meets standard.
 * The economic statistics you mention, drawing on the Santos et al. piece seem a little haphazard. Why mention the regional GVA but omit the employment numbers, for example?
 * Some information could be made to be more relevant by adding relevant information. For example, there is a paragraph on the CGD bank, but it does not mention that this bank is headquartered in Lisbon.

6/11/2019 Evaluation by pjbpdx
Pjbpdx (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Points: 37/40 Grade: 87.5%

Spelling/Grammar Meets Expectations.

Language Meets Expectations.I'd consider using a different, more concise tone wi/ these two phrases: ‘a recent study done in 2018’ or ‘a study done in 2000’. I’d consider restyling this sentence so that it is more concise- ‘In 2017, Portugal was named the most popular tourist stop by the World Travel Awards which has impacted Portugal's economy as a whole and Lisbon's as well since it is one of Portugal's larger and more attractive cities’.

Organization Meets Expectations. Information seems organized. Good paragraphs and headers.

Coding Perfect coding that I can see.

Validity Solid information.

Completion Exceeds Standard. Complete.

Relevance Little irrelevant content.. In your Stockholm music industry section, some information is geared more toward Sweden as a country and less on the city. Still solid info but perhaps zone in further on the city.

Sources Meets Expectations. Solid sources.

Citations Present and in correct notation formation.

References Present and in correct pre-defined. There were a few sources links that didn’t lead me to the article or allow access to anymore than the title. I’d double check that all info is present. Otherwise, looks pretty good!

06/09/2019 Evaluation by User:Sackhy
Points: 38/40 Grade: 95%

Spelling/Grammar — No major mistakes in the work — Meets standard.

Language — Good use of Proper English, as well as a neutral tone — Meets standard.

Organization — The work was easy to follow and had a natural flow — Meets standard.

Coding — Good coding — Meets standard.

Validity — Good information with reliable sources — Meets standard.

Completion — Work is not currently complete — Does not meet standard.

Relevance — 	All the information provided were relevant to the topic. No irrelevant information. — Meets standard.

Sources — High quality sources, but at the moment you still need three more — Does not meet standard.

Citations — Properly formatted — Meets standard.

References — Properly formatted — Meets standard. Sackhy (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

6/18/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The big problem here is that it reads like a tourist pamphlet, rather than a Wikipedia article. Your job is not to sell us on Stockholm. It's to provide neutral information. While you appear to have done some interesting work, I do not recommend that you post this stuff until you have completely neutralized the language.
 * Points: 37/40
 * Grade: 92.5%

Spelling/Grammar
Nearly meets standard.
 * "As well, the music industry..." This is not an appropriate way to start a paragraph.
 * "...industry is more than outputting songs and albums..." is 'outputting' a proper word?
 * "...music teacher's awareness..." Just one teacher? (teachers' would be the proper way to pluralize the possessive).
 * "...diversity; Music teachers..." Music should not be capitalized.

Language
Does not meet standard.
 * Some tourist-pamphlet style language:
 * "Stockholm's booming music industry..."
 * "...Stockholm's rich past..."
 * "...an extremely competitive..."
 * etc.
 * "..., as we have seen..." Who is 'we'? There should be no first (or second) person pronouns in Wikipedia or other formal writing.

Organization
Meets standard.
 * There could be a bit more apparent internal organization. Avoid 1-2 sentence paragraphs if you can.

Coding
Meets standard.

Validity
Meets standard.

Completion
Meets standard.

Relevance
Meets standard.
 * The paragraph starting with "The youth community in Stockholm..." suggests a demand side to this, but it doesn't specify if this demand is for locally-created music, or is just general demand for music.