User talk:Maddladd8011/sandbox

Peer Review
Hey! I was not able to identify a clear lead section, so I will assume your first two sentences could be your lead section. If the effects were seen in 1465, then that is 1465, not the early 1460s. As in those two dates are not equivalent, so look more into your sources and identify which one to go with. “Isn’t known for sure” is not concise, I would consider changing this to simply “uncertain”. “actually” is redundant here. As our assignment stated the lead section should just be a single sentence, but I think two sentences are fine with how it is broken up, but I would not add much more information here.

The structure needs to be more clear, so break up your lead sentence and create a new section. For ideas on this lookup other mystery eruptions on Wikipedia! I see potential based on a brief read of your sources for a background section and a global impact section. I highly suggest trying to format this like it is your real article by adding in the image. Do not start with a bullet point and add in your wikilinks.

The content is lacking here, but you do have some good background information and global impact information that you can expand on. Your articles contain a ton of information that you can pull from! What is the impact on the global economy? What did they find in the ice cores? What was the impact on wine?

Your tone does come off as neutral, however, you should avoid contractions and words like "actually". It is your second sentence that did not seem completely neutral, so overall good job!

As anticipated your articles are reliable sources and contain an abundance of relevant information. However, make sure when you add them to your reference that you double-check it contains all the relevant information. They should both contain a year of publication and what were they published in. One of your articles has a doi, that should be included. SMotz3 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)