User talk:Mzgatpdxdotedu/sandbox3

6/3/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Overall, this is pretty good stuff, but it has significant problems with sources, citations and references. Some of that is because your sourcing (relying heavily on a few different sources counted multiple times) requires more sophisticated code treatment.
 * Points: 35.5/40
 * Grade: 88.75%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.
 * Notwithstanding the lack of periods, which I will consider a citation issue, it all seems to check out.

Language
Exceeds standard. This is very well written, with good paraphrasing.

Organization
Nearly meets standard. You do not indicate where these paragraphs are supposed to be placed.

Coding
Meets standard.

Validity
Meets standard.

Completion
Meets standard.

Relevance
Meets standard.

Example of multiple citations for single reference
For example, just multiple references:

The 1918 virus did not only infect humans. It is believed that the disease also infected animals such as horses, cows and pigs, and also migratory and coastal birds. Due to the composition of the 1918 virus, it is thought to be a predecessor of the modern H1N1 virus. During the first world war, virologists have confirmed that the British army, in order to feed the millions of troops, added wild ducks and geese into the soldiers meals, introducing the virus to human populations. The physical stress of combat combining with the unsanitary environment and exposure to chemical and bacterial agents provided the virus a perfect situation to incubate and mature.

Example of multiple references, a bibliography, and locations in references
The 1918 virus did not only infect humans. It is believed that the disease also infected animals such as horses, cows and pigs, and also migratory and coastal birds. Due to the composition of the 1918 virus, it is thought to be a predecessor of the modern H1N1 virus. During the first world war, virologists have confirmed that the British army, in order to feed the millions of troops, added wild ducks and geese into the soldiers meals, introducing the virus to human populations. The physical stress of combat combining with the unsanitary environment and exposure to chemical and bacterial agents provided the virus a perfect situation to incubate and mature.

Peer Review #3 (John Hernandez)
Peer review by John Hernández Michael Glenn Sandbox Project #3

Looks like you’re having a tough time, your third edit looks incomplete. I’m sure you can turn around this unfortunate peer review if you work on formulating a comprehensive article by the due date. I’ve so enjoyed your input in our weekly module discussions each week and I’m quite confident that you’re capable of figuring this out if you give yourself the time. Unfortunately, I haven’t been given much content to work with at the time of my peer review so it’s not a great reflection of what I’ve come to expect from you this term.

I’m really concerned as to why you’ve repeated a source four times and cited it as four separate sources. I’m not sure if you’re using it as a placeholder but it really takes away from any content you’re trying to convey. When I look further and really examine your sources there is very little content here.

14/45. (31.1%)

Spelling/Grammar: 3 points. Sentence structure is fine and articulate.

Language: 2 points. Perfect encyclopedic tone, but some content is missing.

Organization: 1 points. No headers. Unfinished. Not very cohesive and a bit repetitive.

Coding: 1 points. I don’t see any.

Validity: 2 points. There’s a lot of general information on the virus itself but very little about the city of Plymouth. The focus of the course is European cities.

Completeness:1. There’s very little content to speak of which makes it difficult to formulate any criticism because it’s lacking most of the content.

Relevance: 1 points. Again, most of your sources are are about the virus in general and not specific to any locality.

Sources: 1 points. At first glance, you’ve almost got enough sources and there’s 15 on the list. I’m a little concerned as to why one of these sources is repeated 4 times in your reference list, and it’s a video so it doesn’t seem very scholarly. You cited it like it was separate sources which is totally bizarre to me.

Citations: 1. These are messy and lack cohesion. See previous comment about repeating sources.

References: 1. I’m equally concerned as to why you have actually cited that repeated citation numerous times as separate sources. Again, it’s a film. Unless it’s published by a governmental or educational institution, I wouldn’t rely on it as a source of information in the first place. Jjher7030 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)