User talk:MisterGrumpy/sandbox

Amber's Peer Review The lead is very good. The addition of the mission and the Idaho Youth program are important to add here. The lead is concise and clear. The content added is good, however in the history section when the dates of establishment are mentioned it is unclear if those dates are specific to Idaho’s air and army national guard. This could be added to be more clear. The addition of Homeland security seems a little out of place unless you can give the reader some info on how Idaho is involved. Are any of the jobs within Homeland security department done from Idaho? The addition of the air force bases is good, the wording “A couple” is vague. You may consider being more precise. Also, more information on the Idaho Youth Challenge Academy would be good (if more info is available). The tone of the article is neutral, well done. While I read through it, I did not read any bias or opinions. The organization of the article is good. It has a nice structure and flow. As I looked through the references, I read some content specifically about the Air force bases that could be added to the article. Also, the reference used for Homeland Security is just a definition website. Adding a government run website would be more credible and may offer more info for the article. Overall, the article is improved from the original and maintains a neutral tone. AmberlynRHill (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Amber

Darren Romero's Peer Review of the Idaho Military Department
1. The introductory sentence is clear and concise. It doesn't necessarily lead into the article's major section very well. It gets the point across of what it is. Nothing was added by our American National Government class to the introductory sentence. Probably, because the existing sentence conveyed a clear and concise message.

2.The content added is mostly relevant and current in regards to the Idaho Military Department. There is a whole section on the Department of Homeland Security that I don't think is relevant enough to have a whole section on it. But, there may have been limited information which would deem that acceptable.The History section on the edit appears to be empty. I suggest adding some information under a section title. The rest of the added information is great and necessary.

3. All of the information is factual and neutral. Great job there! I don't believe there is any information that is unnecessary. As I already hit on, the history section could use some love. The rest of the sections are represented well. Overall the page doesn't seem biased in any way, shape, or form.

4. All sources are thorough and current. Each base website has an extensive amount of information. Any of the sites that seem less legit do still provide accurate information. Great job on finding new information as well!

5. In the lead sentence near the end, "its" should be "it's". Other than that my only recommendation would be to try and use some fancier words. Sounds funny, but that's all I've got for you! LOL

6. No pictures added.

7. Your group did a great job adding new information and determining what was relevant enough to include on this wikipedia page. Most topics had limited sources and you were able to power through that challenge. I would attempt to expand on some information in regards to the bases in Idaho and the Youth project!

Darren Romero — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadDad199 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)