User talk:Pmv96/sandbox

I thought you provided a solid outline, explaining what your were planning on improving and how you were planning on improving as well as why. However, in terms of the information you added I feel like it was not enough in some sections. For example, in the “Gurtel case” section you only added 4 sentences to the section, perhaps because it is only a draft but I would like to see more in depth analysis. The chronology of main events is vague, but again I assume it is because it is simply a draft. You only cited 2 different links but never stated specifically what information came from where. The two links you provided though seem to be sound sources, both of which work when I pressed them. Also your voice in the matter seems to be neutral seeing that you are only providing unbiased facts to the article.

Peer Review - Moussa Fellahi
Hi Pablo,

Thank you for your comments in my section, I am currently taking all of them into consideration in order to improve my final project. Sorry for the delay for this peer review. Here are my comments on your draft concerning the Grutel Case. Sorry if I ask a lot of question, I'm trying to not make too many assumptions on what you intent to do. I hope that taking these question in consideration will be helpful when you will be in the process of writing.

→ If I understand your outlines, you primarily intent to edit the 'media coverage' section as well as the one on the impact on Valencia and create two additional sections : One on the companies directly involved with the Popular party while the other on the chronology of events. Are you planning on editing the other sections presented such as the one focusing on the Judicial process or the Barcenas paper ? Perhaps I just got confused because you wrote [edit] next to the section sub-header. But if you do plan to modify all of the sections, I would advise not to loose too much time or energy on these. I don't have the appropriate knowledge but they seem less unsubstantial than the ones you decided to focus on except for the one drawing on Corruption and Transparency in Spain which I think can be ameliorated with insightful empirical information.

→ You mentioned that you wanted to add information on the case up to now (in 2018). I think this is a really good idea, especially if the case showed significant offspring up to now with unresolved issues. Do you plan to create an additional section for it or rather merge it with the chronology of events ? Personally, I would use it as a sort of conclusive paragraph which could also operate as a wrap up of most of the information you covered. Perhaps you could merge this part with the section I mentioned earlier 'Corruption and Transparency' in Spain and expand on Spain's first anti-corruption commission in 2016. This is just a suggestion, if it's not really correlated, disregard this comment.

→ You seem to be taking a neutral stance (according to Wikipedia's standards). Of course, no information comes unbiased but it seems like you are trying to add on insightful information that will help gain a more in-depht understanding of the case of matter. I agree that the direct jump to the judicial process after the intro seems a bit abrupt. Nonetheless, I think some of the information you provided in the intro could be used in a split section or merged with the chronology of events (I'm thinking predominantly to what you've written on Jose Luis Penas – sorry for butchering the name, I'm working with the library's computers– Except if you have extensive information for each of the bullet points in the chronology of event. I can't really judge the viability of your sources since I can only understand the French-like words in Spanish so I'll let you and professor Balan be the judges of that. I guess, like I advised Sabrina providing more information on how the convicted or soon-to-be justified their actions, choices or the way that they have argued for their innocence.

→ I would also, rather than just list the companies involved with the scandal maybe add small explanation on they were associated with the case. Maybe you already had this in mind.

→ I like the Youtube link that you intend to use. Maybe cite or describe some segments of the report from El Pais in your article. I assume that this would be significantly helpful for the media coverage section. I don't know how biased El Pais is, but I assume that you will contrast it with the other coverages that were already mentioned in the section. → Overall, your plan of action seems legit and shows good potential to help improve the quality of this article. Good luck with the writing.

Cheers,

MF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfellahi3 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Manuel Balan Review
This draft is ok in terms of structure, but it still needs quite a bit of background research, as sources are scarce. Also, watch the format and the style, which needs some work to fit the wiki parameters. Again, I think you are off to a good start, it just needs more work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)