User talk:LindseyAbernathy/sandbox

Lindsey,

Overall, I found your Wikipedia page to be educational, well put together and written in a neutral context.

The biggest recommendation that I have is to ensure that you have a lead before all the other categories in order to introduce your topic and give insight. Without the lead I went into the article not 100% sure what I was going to read about and was instantly thrown into the history of it all. I know your article is on Humboldt bay, but without the lead, it caused it to seem unclear on one specific topic.

In terms of organization, I felt that the sections were organized properly and gave good insight on the topic at hand. In your last section, I would try to include a link to the Salmon Creek Wikipedia page (if there is one), so someone could get more information if needed.

All of your references seem to be good reliable sources. My only comment would be to try and fix the read area’s within that section.

If there’s any more information on the topic, I would continue to add and edit your paper. If not, everything here looks great except for the few comments I have above.

Below, I used to Wikipedia peer review template to help.

Lead

Guiding questions: •	Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? •	Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? •	Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? •	Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? •	Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

I am unable to provide feedback on the lead because it has not been written yet. Content

Guiding questions: •	Is the content added relevant to the topic? •	Is the content added up-to-date? •	Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

All the content provided in the Wikipedia page is, relevant, up-to-date and belongs.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions: •	Is the content added neutral? •	Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? •	Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? •	Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

All the content within was neutral and nothing was overrepresented or underrepresented

Sources and References

Guiding questions: •	Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? •	Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? •	Are the sources current? •	Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The content was backed by current reliable sources that all worked when I clicked on the links.

Organization

Guiding questions: •	Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? •	Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? •	Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The only spelling error I found was in the first section “Indigenous People”, last paragraph, where it should be night instead of nigh.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions: •	Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? •	What are the strengths of the content added? •	How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

Overall, I enjoyed reading this article, it gave good information on the history and provided a lot of information that I never knew before.

Devynrom (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lindsey!

Thank you for your feedback on my draft!

Devynrom (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)