User talk:Marissa cuevas/sandbox

Peer review completed by Katie Seliga
1.Introductory Sentence: Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence? If not, how might the writer revise her introductory sentence?

Yes, the introductory sentence allows me to understand what the content of the page is about. From reading the first line, I knew that this wiki page was going to discuss the song "Doubt".

2.Summary:Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing?

It appears as if the Wiki page is discussing an analysis of the song. It might be good to place a line in the Overview section that briefly mentions she faced many hardships as a child and used her singing voice as an escape and has since inspired and motivated listeners with her music.

3.Context:Is the information included in the summary also present in the body of the article? If not, what needs to be removed from the summary?

The body of the article shares her story of growing up and how she was able to make a name for her self, but I did not find that in the lead section/summary. I think the tip of tying together her childhood background influencing her music background (in the overview section) could lead to a easy transition to the content in the body of the article. I enjoyed how you mentioned how she used her singing voice to escape the abuse and hardships she faced.

4.Organization: Are the topics well-organized and divided by headings and subheadings? Does the article cover the topic in organized, logical fashion? If not, how might the author consider revising the article to improve the organization?

I think that the topics are well organized. I did notice that the section where that is titled "Mary J Blige (artist) is not bolded or in a larger font. I think that organizing the content in Overview, Mary J Blige (artist), Song Lyrics, and then Song Analysis was very smart, because it has a flow to it that is logical for readers and easy to understand. A suggestion would be to add a subheading titled "Doubt" before the Song Lyrics subheading, that would provide a good place to place more content about the song.

5.Content: Has the author added sections added to cover the topic more broadly and fill some existing gaps? If so, what are those additions? What else might be added?

The content in the body of the article has the potential for more information to the song "Doubt". For example, in addition to the release date, provide information on who the recording studio was with, if she wrote the song independently or collaborated with individuals, what her motive was behind the song (were there any specific memories from her childhood that were inspiration for the song?). Also, I liked how you mentioned some reviews about the song. A "Reviews" subheading could be a great addition to your article. I liked how you added the content discussing the reviews because it provides readers with evidence of just how impacting her songs are. I'm not sure if any companies in the music industry have spoken about her song since the release, or if any websites have referenced it, etc. but the reviews are a great source of referencing how powerful her songs are.

6.What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing?

The author added sections discussing the singer's child life and current personal life. She also provided song lyrics, an analysis of song lyrics and her journey to the music industry. The topics that the author should consider adding are mentioned in question 5.

7.Is the coverage of the topic balanced? If not, what could the author add or change to make it seem more balanced? Where does the author present information in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

It appears that the content is balanced. The content did not show any biases or use any terms/tones that would make readers believe it was not neutral.

Here are some questions to consider that will help you address issues of balance and neutrality: •	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." There were not any words that did not feel neutral. •	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." There were not any claims made on behalf of unnamed groups/people. •	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article focuses on positive and negative information. The negative information being some of the experiences she faced as a child, and the positive information being how she is very successful today. Where might the author consider revising the essay to make the tone sound more like that of an encyclopedia and less like an argument? There are no revisions that need to be made for the tone to sound more like an encylopedia

8.Citations: Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references?

None of the statements were associated with supporting references. To put a supporting reference after a sentence, click after the period/punctuation mark at the end of the statement, click "cite" at the top banner, copy and paste website address that you received the information, click generate. A little number should appear by that statement and the link should be placed at the bottom of the article under references next to the number that follows after the statement.

9.Sources: Are the sources cited the best available on the topic? Are they appropriate for the discipline/genre? If not, which sources might need to be changed? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, do they lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view?

The sources cited are great ones for this article. The addition of a few sources discussing the history/inspiration for the song would be beneficial in the "Doubt" song subheading and help make the content of the page more richer. Also, whenever Mary J Blige is mentioned, or another popular word/subject etc. is mentioned an associated link could be placed to allow the readers to get more information in regards to that topic. The associated links send readers to a Wiki page that discussed that topic. A link the the Mary J Blige Wiki would a nice reference because that page is full of content and provides more background on her etc. To add the associated link type two brackets [ then type the word or subject, then type 2 more brackets. A box with different Wiki pages related to that topic pop up and choose the page you want it to link to.

10.Completeness	Do the references include completely filled out citation templates? If not, which ones need to be filled out? The references do not include the completely filled out citation template. I believe that those templates will appear completely filled out once the source citing are completed.

Peer Review - Kip Ambrose
1.Introductory Sentence: Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence? If not, how might the writer revise her introductory sentence?

The introductory statement covered all the topics necessary, from when it was made to how it did on the charts. It was very concise as well and not too wordy, which could stray readers away from your article. Very good opening statement that catches the attention of the reader while also keeping concise. Great job!

2.Summary: Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing?

The lead section describes the overview of Mary J Blige’s career, but it doesn’t include much about the song “Doubt”, other than the album that it was on and how that album did. It would be great to see more information about the song itself and how it was made.

3.Context: Is the information included in the summary also present in the body of the article? If not, what needs to be removed from the summary?

I would connect more information about her album and how it did with the song. Also, connect her life with the song. What inspired her to write it?

4.Organization: Are the topics well-organized and divided by headings and subheadings? Does the article cover the topic in organized, logical fashion? If not, how might the author consider revising the article to improve the organization?

The article is well organized and easy to read. The headings and sub-headings make sense and are very easy to follow.

5.Content: Has the author added sections added to cover the topic more broadly and fill some existing gaps? If so, what are those additions? What else might be added?

I would add something about what was going on at the time and how the song connects to America and the World in that moment. This could give a lot more context into her lyrics as well.

6.What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing?

I loved how you added things about the album and her career. It was great to have the context before about her career and how popular she was and also how popular the song was. There isn’t any other small details that I would recommend adding. You pretty much covered all of the little stuff, but I would focus on the bigger picture topics like how it relates to other aspects of the time. Adding a bit more to the song analysis would be nice to see.

7.Is the coverage of the topic balanced? If not, what could the author add or change to make it seem more balanced? Where does the author present information in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

The tone that you present it in is very good and it comes off very professional. You don’t seem to be biased in any area toward or against this song, but rather you are presenting facts about it. This is very good for the article, as it gives you a lot of credibility and is very easy to read. It is also in the style of Wikipedia writing which is great.

8.Citations: Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references?

There are some point where I feel like you could add more citations. Especially in the first paragraph, where there is a lot of material, it would be nice to have a few more references there.

9.Sources: Are the sources cited the best available on the topic? Are they appropriate for the discipline/genre? If not, which sources might need to be changed? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, do they lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view?

The sources used are very effective and come from trustable sites, which adds to your credibility as an author. Sites likes Genius are very good for music, so it was great that you used that for the lyrics. Also, biography.com is a great source and very trustable. Using that source was good for getting background info on Mary J Blige.

10.Completeness: Do the references include completely filled out citation templates? If not, which ones need to be filled out?

They just include the website link. Just put them into Easybib and you should be good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KipAmbrose12 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)