User talk:Lukashoule/sandbox/New sandbox

Lukas' Peer Review
You really grasp the reader with the lead -- works really well considering the lack of a lead or article beforehand.

You have a nice structure that makes the reading understandable and concise. The only issues regarding structure that I can think of would be some citing errors (likely done when you copied from what the original article); when you cite [191], that is not included in your bibliography at the bottom. Another issue arises at the beginning of your bibliography. It seems that some of your article somehow got into the citation. As far as physical structure, those are the main errors that I would recommend you to fix/worry about. The article is well written and free from grammatical errors while flowing nicely, I couldn't really find issues that just stuck out to me.

You make sure not to stray into partisan beliefs, which is really good. The article is balanced and neutral and you make sure to not be persuasive, which is very good for an article on voting.

Likewise, the content itself is pretty much neutral. There isn't much debate that arises over what you are presenting. You present the laws, facts, and amendments as they are -- you stay clear of opinions on the matter.

You have good, authentic sources, the only issue is that there are many comments and information that don't seem to come from a specific source. This is worrying as it causes the reader to question where this information came from as well as its validity.

I feel as though there is not much for you to change as far as information goes. You stick to the facts which is great for an article on this platform. I would only suggest that you work on/fix the citing, sourcing, and slight structural issues mentioned above. Fixing those would make the article well-rounded and complete. While reading your article I realized many things that I could do to improve my own entry; the main thing being the neutrality. If I looked at this article I would assume you knew what you were talking about and the article held truth based on the unbiased approach. You really don't include your own opinion, as you shouldn't in this article, and I really hope to adapt that and ensure that my article too holds that same kind of objectivity.

Bwallace10 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Bwallace10

Lukas's Peer Review
Lukas-- I thought your information was very helpful to the document you edited. First off, you used clear sources that are both credible and unbiased. The use of a primary source in the form of government documentation was successful in keeping the information unbiased and giving the first source that the information is reported on. Lastly, I think that the edits you made were written very well and kept the information concise and effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinedehn (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)