User talk:Paul E. Hubbard/sandbox

=Evaluations=

1/29/2018 Evaluation by caleb26
Fantastic work. This perspective of history that you are sharing in the article is something that I feel is so often overlooked. I am thrilled to see what you add to this section of the wiki.
 * Points: 36/40
 * Grade: 90%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard. No obvious errors.

Language
Nearly meets standard. I would rework the last two sentences to avoid using the first person plural. Everything else seems to have the correct language.

Organization
Meets standard. The main topic of art in Antwerp is focused on throughout the paragraph and therefore organization seems correct. You could try splitting the paragraph in two starting with the section where you begin discussing the works of specific artists.

Coding
Meets Standard.

Validity
Meets standard. Several of the sources look quite good. None of them appear to be peer-reviewed.

Completion
Nearly meets standard. The length of the article is excellent. This certainly meets the expectations of the assignment. Although, I would look for more peer-reviewed sources.

Relevance
Meets standard. From my understanding the article is addressing the history of the city by viewing it from the perspective of the art that was produced in that era. This seems to be relevant to the history section.

1/29/2018 Evaluation by Bportis
Spelling/Grammar-  Exceeds standard, no spelling or grammar mistakes. I might change the part that says "Antwerp's newly found wealth brought.." to "Antwerp's new-found wealth brought..". But after a little grammar research, either would be correct, the latter just sounds better to me. No worries if you want to keep it as is!

Language-  Exceeds standard. No usage of contractions or use of first or second person, and a use of neutral language.

Organization-  Exceeds standard, I'm certain that you will change the heading that says "16th century history section add on", and that's just there as a place holder for your sandbox editing purposes.

Coding-  Exceeds standard,Perfect.

Validity-  Exceeds standard, great and numerous sources.

Completion-  Exceeds standard, complete with three sources.

Relevance-  Exceeds standard, relevant information about art and artists in Antwerp, tying into the Antwerp Cathedral at the end.

Sources-  Exceeds standard, quality scholarly sources.

Citations-  Exceeds standard, perfect citation placement.

References-  Exceeds standard, proper referencing that matches Antwerp's reference section.

Overall Impressions-  I give your edit an 'A' grade! This will be a great addition to the Antwerp page. Great job!

Shayla's Peer Review
Language[edit source] Meets Expectations. Good word usage.

Organization[edit source] Good. General information was given about the topic with a specific example at the end.

Coding[edit source] Great.

Validity[edit source] Almost meets standard. I would suggest adding in other European cities in contrast to who Antwerp was competing with. For example I read about my researched city of Nuremberg and how it housed the most famous German painter Albrecht Durer. Thus I would question the validity of this statement.

Completion[edit source] Almost meets standard. Would add more information about how it was the leading art center of Europe.

Relevance[edit source] Good, this is great information.

Sources[edit source] Almost meets standard. I would have liked to see a links that I could click on to check the sources for validity. However we all share the first reference, the Clark book, in our class so that's fine.

Citations[edit source] Meets Expectations. These were fabulous, as each sentence had a source at the end of it.

References[edit source] Great.

Ending Notes: Good job Paul! It seems like you put a great amount of effort into this paragraph. I liked how you added links to specific people, events, things mentioned in the paragraph to help readers learn more about that specific topic. I also like how each of your sentences have a citation. Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaywah (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Overall Comments
Hey Paul, this is a great addition to the Edinburgh page. This is some great information about the literature and authors from Edinburgh.

Spelling/Grammar
Exceeds standard. Perfect spelling, no errors found.

Language
Meets standard. Good encyclopedic tone and diction, and no contractions. I might think about changing the "claims to fame" to something more encyclopedic in nature, but that's probably just nitpicking.

Organization
Meets standard. Great paragraphs and headers, good organization. Good job!

Coding
Meets standard. Lots of links to other pages, looks great. You could add a link to the Scotland page in the last paragraph.

Validity
Exceeds standard. Good and valid information pertaining to the literature and authors of Edinburgh.

Completion
Meets standard. You have more than enough sources and everything looks good. Just need to add one more link!

Relevance
Exceeds standard. I think that this is all relevant information for the Edinburgh page.

02/26/2018 Evaluation by caleb26
(Nice work! This is an intriguing topic. I am glad that you chose it.)
 * Points: 38/40
 * Grade: 95%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard. Very impressive. Your piece stands out has having the least errors of any peer reviews that I have done for this second edit. I have only two small remarks. First, in keeping with standard Wikipedia formatting, the periods should be placed before the in-text citations. Lastly, in the sentence that begins with, "J.K. Rowling, The author of the Harry Potter..." "...The..." should not be capitalized. Aside from this, everything is tightly assembled.

Language
Meets standard. Stylistically, everything seems appropriate for Wikipedia. Good work keeping the tone consistent. The only thing I might mention is the use of "one" in the second sentence that mentions Sherlock Holmes. While this is completely a choice (and I know the use of "one" works as a way of emphasizing the name of the person being introduced) stylistically I question whether it is appropriate for a wiki article as it is now mostly used to make writing seem either humorous or archaic. Again, it is totally up to you. Everything else is very nice.

Organization
Meets standard. The organization is clear. The first paragraph is about the older, famous authors, while the second paragraph discusses more broadly the publication of older texts and the activity of contemporary writers in the city.

Coding
Meets Standard. No coding errors apparent.

Validity
Meets standard. The sources seem reputable and nothing immediately stands out as being untrue.

Completion
Meets standard. The assignment calls for two paragraphs with at least ten citations. Both of these requirements have been met.

Relevance
Meets standard. This seems relevant as the presence of notable writers and their works are appropriate for this type of Wiki.

3/20/2018 Evaluation by caleb26
Nice work Paul. There are just a few things that I have noted below that could use some attention. I wish you the best with your assignment. Caleb26 (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Points: 38.5/40
 * Grade: 96%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard

I would just add an "as" to this sentence. "Universities within Vienna, such [as] the University of Vienna, have published research within the field of cancer treatment."

Throughout the article there are "and[s]" that are preceded by a comma and ones that are not. With or without is acceptable. However, it is generally better writing to choose one form or another.

Language
Meets standard Language use is appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are no contractions.

Organization
Meets standard. I understand that your main subject is the various types of scientific or medical research being conducted in Vienna. The contents of each sub-heading focus on what I expect them too.

Coding
Meets standard. I do not see any coding errors.

Validity
Meets standard. Citations appear after nearly every sentence validating the information. Nearly every cited article is a peer reviewed source which suggests that the content is likely to be valid.

Completion
Meets standard. The requirement of 20 sources and five paragraphs has been met. The majority of the articles are peer reviewed which the assignment description suggests are preferable. Thus, by this criteria the completion rate is quite high. There are just a few things of course that should be taken care of that I will note in the other categories.

Relevance
Meets standard. The information presented seems relevant. I feel that the relevancy is increased by the fact that the majority of what is written is touched on by the academic journals that are cited.