User talk:Mlross18/sandbox

Before you Peer Review
What went well: - organization - finding relevant information

What could be better: - citing (i can only use one source so links are repeated multiple times)

Questions: - please edit for things like GSP! - edit for any narrative language

Thanks ladies! Mlross18 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Toree Peer Review
Introductory Sentence: Nice introduction. It's clear of what you are addressing Summary: The information is clear and easy to follow and understand. Content: Good language, none of it seems to be biased. Factual information. I honestly don't see anything that needs fixing. Citations: I think it's perfectly fine that you cited the same source more than once, you did a good job of citing it frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toree Thompson (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bridget Peer Review
Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence? I thought your introductory sentence stated the the article topic very well. Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing? Yes

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? There is not a main summary, but I thought you did a good job of writing the article. I think that not all of the peer review questions are applicable to each wiki article because there are different requirements.

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? It is organized.

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?What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing? I think the additions seemed really good!

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? I think the coverage is good, this assignment is tricky so I enjoyed reading the information you put in!

Where might the author consider revising the essay to make the tone sound more like that of an encyclopedia and less like an argument? YOu did a really great job of using an encyclopedia tone.

Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references? 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? Do the references include completely filled out citation templates? If not, which ones need to be filled out? The references seemed to be completely filled out. The sources seemed reliable and accurate.

Bridgetedavis (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)