User talk:Ponads17/sandbox

6/7/2019 Evaluation of Bordeaux by DrMichaelWright
94.246.91.194 (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

With a few suggestions below, I do think this is worthwhile posting on Wikipedia. It would be a good idea to integrate what you have on certain topics with the homes that those topics already have elsewhere in the article. It would help prevent 'culture' becoming too bloated of a concept, even if what is there now is a clearly too spare.
 * Points: 40/40
 * Grade: 100%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.
 * "...and less taxes than..." less tax or fewer taxes.
 * "...as the 1800’s,..." omit apostrophe. It's plural, not possessive.

Language
Meets standard.
 * "You can see..." This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist website. Avoid the 1st and 2nd person (I, you, we).

Organization
Meets standard.
 * This big swathe of text could use subheaders. It looks like they would be something like the following:
 * Museums
 * River/wine tours (though there is not a lot here, and it's questionable if this is a culture topic).
 * Festivals
 * Viticulture heritage (though it's also debatable if this - as it is currently written - is really cultural as well).
 * Wine tourism (should probably be merged with the river/wine tours paragraph - again, not clearly cultural
 * Religion (it's a bit of a stub at the moment).

Coding
Nearly meets standard.
 * There are some code errors in the references. See below for how to fix them.

Validity
Meets standard.

Completion
Exceeds standard. You've certainly written enough material

Relevance
Meets standard.
 * Indeed, the culture section of Bordeaux really needs to be fleshed out.
 * There is a lot here that is culture in a bit too broad of an understanding of culture - which is frequently the case with culture. It seems like 'culture', here, has been hijacked and is being packaged and sold by the tourist industry. In some sense, this is also what your source, Robert Ulin (1995), is arguing. However, I do understand that the borders of the concept are exceedingly fuzzy.

5/5/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) This is really well done. I hope you'll just make the few tweaks suggested below and add it to the live Wikipedia version of the Verona article.


 * Points: 41.5/40
 * Grade: 103.75%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.
 * "Rail-road" should be "railroad" (A spelling error of your source, I think.)

Language
Meets standard. There is an inconsistency with using Italian vs. English names. I think referring to Brenner and Naples is best for English-language Wikipedia, rather than Brennero and Napoli.

Organization
Exceeds standard. You've really integrated it well with the existing material.

Coding
Nearly meets standard. Two of the references seem to have a dating issue. I don't think they're set up to have a numeric year-month date input. With sources like these, I think you're fine only reporting the year.

Validity
Exceeds standard.
 * It may be just a little too valid to report the average of 3,103,782 per year. I think "3.1 million" would be an eloquent rounding.

Completion
Meets standard.

Relevance
Meets standard.

2nd Edit Review by Bmkeaty
Hey, really good wiki article so far! Everything about it seems like a normal wiki article that you'd read in the published content. The only few critiques I'd have would be with the wording. This sentence here at the end of the first paragraph feels a little strange and I think could be reworked to make it a little more clear. "In addition to regional and local services the city is served by direct international trains to Zurich, Innsbruck and Munich and by overnight sleeper services to Paris and Dijon (Thello), Munich and Vienna (ÖBB)." It feels redundant to me having Munich in there twice. Maybe that could be reworked into two sentences? Also the last portions I'm confused about too. Is there over night service to Paris, Dijon, Munich and Vienna? Or Paris to Dijon and Munich to Vienna? Can you see why I'm confused or am just reading too much into it? The other criticism I have is in the Airport section. Really good portion but at the end you list off a handful of main airports that have direct connections to the Verona airport, then proceed to say "among other." The list feels a little long to me only to find out that there's actually more. I feel most wiki readers search other places to find that type of information. But again, that could just be my perception. Would like to hear what other readers think! Other than that, I think it's a very well done article and I think it deserves to be published on the official wiki. The content was very straight forward and gave the wholistic picture without feeling bias towards any particular stance. There is a great photo that fits the aesthetic of most of the wiki photos I've seen before. There are also plenty of sources that support your contributions. Great job!!!