User talk:Mnguyenn96/sandbox

I think she did a great job coming up with initial ideas in her drafting and putting the most relevant parts in bold as well as the ideas she took away from her scholarly sources. My's drafting for her area article Gentrification in greater Bay Area was very interesting and captivating as her writing is easy to read and understand. She added new ideas and concepts to an already very well developed page from her sources which I thought was amazing. I reviewed both of her sector and area articles and found that My really put time into thinking about her drafting as she even included general recommendations to solve these issues that are spoken about on her pages.

I think My’s sentences could be a bit wordy as she wrote this The result is similar to conclusion from other studies, with the emerging themes includes: companionship, reduced depression, isolation, loneliness, and increased social network. In this sentence I believe My could focus on further breaking down each of the concepts she discusses including the research study to add context to the reader's knowledge. The area drafting section contains several strong scholarly articles and information that has allowed My to truly focus on writing strong ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ami Ambu (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that she has done her research on the wikipedia articles she wants to edit and how she can improve on her ideas. I believe she could add more content within these pages in her drafting but I do understand that these pages are already fairly developed and perhaps adding more related to health in poverty could just be reiterating.

Overall, great work!

- Ami

Jacqueline Dang’s Peer Review: My
Jacqueline Dang’s Peer Review: My

The initial drafting portion for each article was rather brief at the time of this first peer review, so a general comment would be just to flesh out your drafts more with details gathered from sources, and explanations/elaborations. Most of my comments will pertain to the Area article, because the Sector article seems to be more of brainstorm of sources to be integrated into the draft later on. The Sector article, which is "Social determinants of health in poverty" is a broad topic to tackle, so it is understandable that a good deal of planning and thinking will need to occur before subsequent drafting.

Overall, interesting topic, and I look forward to learning more about your topic in the future!

Lead - Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? I really like the topic sentence for your Area article, and believe that it is a great summary of what you plan to talk about, while touching on the importance of the topic - Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, you talk about BTB right off the bat, which is what the entirety of the article is about - Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? See previous comment

Structure - Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Can’t quite comment on structure and organization until more content is added

Balancing - Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Can’t quite comment on this until more content is added - Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Can’t quite comment on this until more content is added - Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? So far, I do not see bias or argumentation for a particular viewpoint

Neutral Content - Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I cannot - the drafts seem relatively neutral. - 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." Some phrases do have positive/negative connotations (e.g. "flourishing," "skyrocket for popular professions"), but I feel that so long as there are sources that support this and they don't just come from the author's own opinion or perspective, it should be okay. - Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No - 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. No

Reliable Sources - Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? I consider most, if not all, of the listed sources reliable and scholarly - Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Can’t quite comment on this until more content is added - Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Some internal citations (bracketed numbers) in the sector article need to be linked to one of the references below, but other than that, I don't see any issues

Positives - First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I am impressed by the number of sources you have, and hope that you will be able to use many of them to compose well-researched, informative pieces to add to each of your respective articles - What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? See previous content comments - What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? See previous comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelinedang (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

My's respond to peer review
Jacqueline's review: Thank you so much for your comments and peer reviews! I will definitely remove and replace some of the phrases that seem biased. Some of them I got from various research that shows a clear stand point. Additionally, I will make sure to add additional sources to the sentences to make them more credible as well. I am planning to add more stuff to related to civic participation and argue that it is one of the social determinants of health that often get overlooked. Do you have any additional comments on my organization of the article?

Ami's review: I am focusing more on quality content but yes I will definitely work on adding more contents as well! Thank you for your comment and if possible, please come back and help me peer review my Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnguyenn96 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)