User talk:Ngonzalez35/sandbox

1. Does each sentence of the proposed edit lead back to a reliable source for a reference or citation? If not, point out which ones do not, and how they need to be fixed.

For the most part, the editor did a good job of finding sources, citing them, and using them as evidence for their article. The one thing I would say is that there should be a slight bit more citing. Like the question says, each sentence should lead back to a reliable source. Personally, I wouldn’t say that you need a source for every single sentence you wrote but I definitely think that you could have added one or two more cites, especially on the sentences that could use just a bit more back-up.

2. Are any of the languages that the edit uses subjective or not-neutral? For example, the "most popular pop singer" is a subjective criterion that is not neutral. However, "winner of 10 Grammy awards", when backed up by a reliable source, is acceptable as it makes use of verifiable information. The author does a good job of keeping their words non-subjective and neutral. There's nothing I would say needs to be changed here.

3. Does the language contain unsourced opinions and value statements, which are not neutral and should be removed? For example, instead of saying: “She was the best singer,” the text should say: “She had 14 number one hits, more than any other singer.”

Once again the author does a good job by not using unsourced opinions and value statements and her writings are backed up by evidence. Nothing to change here either.