User talk:Mackenzie maybury/sandbox

Article Evaluation: This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Technology during World War I I chose this particular article because it relates to our course. Lead[edit] Guiding questions Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the Lead includes 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? Yes the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is a little over detailed. Lead evaluation[edit] Content[edit] Guiding questions Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is relevant to the topic. Is the content up-to-date? The content is up-to-date since it discusses the past. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article does a good job providing necessary information. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It addresses a topic that is historic and talked about a lot. Content evaluation[edit] Tone and Balance[edit] Guiding questions Is the article neutral? The article seems neutral. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims in this article appear heavily biased. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no viewpoints that seem overrepresented or underrepresented. Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not seem to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position away from another. Tone and balance evaluation[edit] Sources and References[edit] Guiding questions Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The facts seem to be backed up by reliable secondary source information. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem thorough and reflect the text. Are the sources current? The sources are current. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors who include historically marginalized individuals from the war. Check a few links. Do they work? The few links from the articles all worked. Sources and references evaluation[edit] Organization[edit] Guiding questions Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article was well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article was well-organized and was broken down into sections that reflected major points of the topic. Organization evaluation[edit] Images and Media[edit] Guiding questions Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes various images that enhance the understanding of the topic. Are images well-captioned? Some but not all of the images are well-captioned. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Most images in this article adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images in this article are placed next to the correlating topics. Images and media evaluation[edit] Checking the talk page[edit] Guiding questions What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The comments include those of who edited and why they did. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I did locate a rating or if the article was a part of any WikiProjects. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have yet to discuss this topic in this course yet. Talk page evaluation[edit] Overall impressions[edit] Guiding questions What is the article's overall status? The overall status of this article is that it does a good job to discuss the topic. What are the article's strengths? The article strengths is that it provides a lot of information on the topic. How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by proving better captions for the photos provided. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say the article is underdeveloped because the pictures provided did not have appropriate captions. Overall evaluation[edit] Optional activity[edit] Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Mackenzie maybury (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Link to feedback:Mackenzie maybury (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review Assignment 7 Complete:
Mackenzie peer-reviewed Timothy's Article

Hi MacKenzie, I reviewed the paragraph who wrote for your article and like the direction you have for it. Adding images and deleting the feminist section would make the article more impartial. I would recommend leaving or editing the section on religion as it pertains to sexual ethics as religion does play into some people's views on sex. (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Christina Albanesius