User talk:Kirstiehenry123/sandbox

Article evaluation feedback
What a fascinating article to evaluate! I had no idea there was a movement to grant personhood to this group of primates. This is a great example of an article in which it is challenging to remain neutral (and you point this out well in your notes about the ethics and rights/responsibilities conversations in the talk page), which makes clear language and excellent sourcing even more critical. You do a nice job here sifting through those stickier elements and observing strengths and weaknesses of the article, and I particularly appreciate your notes about there being numerous high-quality sources, but those sources still not amounting to a robust and informative article. Nicoleccc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Choose a topic feedback
It's fun to see how these articles connect and get a sense for the rabbit trail you followed from one to the next! All of these have good potential as articles to focus on for this project, and you have clear improvement goals for each of them. It does sound like the John A. McDougall article might be the hardest to find good sources for, which can make a significant difference in how challenging this project is. If you're not finding more higher-quality sources (you're correct that his own website is not a great source as it's likely to be biased), I would probably suggest focusing your energy on one of the other two articles. If you're finding a wide range of high-quality sources for both of those, I would recommend choosing the one that is more interesting to you and/or that you're more curious to learn about. Nicoleccc (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Article draft feedback
You've done some good organizational work and additions in this draft! The labeling requirements piece in particular is a great section to add, as it seems to be at the heart of why this topic is a concern in the first place. Some things to keep in mind as you continue to add to and edit the material in this article are:


 * Your bolded note about the debate over whether particles remain could be an opportunity for clarification/expansion. What evidence or core arguments are present in this debate, and what stake do the various voices in the debate have in their point being "correct"?
 * Organization. Separating the non-vegetarian/vegan options from the vegetarian/vegan options makes a lot of sense and adds to the clarity of the article. I'm curious about the choice to narrow the title of the additives section to be only about finings. The text of this section still contains information about other unintentional additives/contaminants that don't fall under the category of "finings", so you will want to either retain the heading from the current published article or else move this second category of information to a different/new section.
 * Are all wineries internationally not required to list finings on their labels, or is this US-specific? If you only learned this about certain countries or find that there are exceptions, it would be good to spell that out here.
 * Phrasing clarity would be good to look at as you revise. Some examples from the current draft are: "...achieve the desired outcome of the wine." (I can't quite follow what this is saying specifically--all parts of the winemaking process are done with this goal in mind, so being more specific about what exactly the finings do in that process would do better work for the article here); "natural or animal-based" (animals are also natural, so the "or" here is confusing. Is the dichotomy you're trying to establish here between plant products and animal products?); "scientists ran a study" (what scientists? Where? When? More information here would add to the credibility of the discussion around this study).
 * "Citations needed" notes from original article material. If you can find sources that do support these points, it would be easy and helpful to add them to those spots. The two citations already present in the current article also aren't cited quite right. The one you've added, with more information than just the URL, is done correctly. Updating the other two with more complete citation information is another seemingly small but helpful edit.

Let me know if you have any questions as you continue adding to and revising these article edits, and I look forward to reading your polished article work! Nicoleccc (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Article Draft Peer Review
Very interesting topic choice! Although I drink a fair amount of wine, I’ve never read much into the wine making process. Even the few wineries I’ve visited didn’t go over this. I can see where this could be a big concern for a vegetarian or vegan. The use of an animal byproduct in something you would traditionally think of as containing anything like that is eye-opening. I hope you are able to find the source materiel you are looking for on whether or not particles are left behind, I agree with you that it seems odd to claim 100% of the are gone. Also filling out your list of well known vegan wines will be a nice touch. Chari.Lottie (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great article! The way it is in sections helps layout the article well. Good job with the links and references section as well! The only thing I would add are a couple citations, and especially where the citation needed quote is displayed. But otherwise good job on the draft!