User talk:Rachel.maner/sandbox

Author's notes: I feel pretty okay with my project over all. I expanded from my stub quite a bit, but my biggest concern is whether or not it is expanded enough. I tried to take three subjects where women empowerment would prove the lives of many women: government, healthcare and education so I think I covered enough, but I worry about the length.

Miranda Ross Peer Review
Introductory Sentence: Your first sentence clearly states how and what gender equality is for Rwanda, good work. Summary: There seems to not be a first summary section of your WIKI. I think if you used headings it would be more clear. But, you do summarize the points in the article. Context: The information in your first paragraph is a good set up to the rest of your sections.

Organization: The wiki is organized clearly, but, you do not have headings or subheadings which makes it daunting to read. If you add those it will work well.

Content: The content you have is comprehensive of the ideas needed to cover gender equality. Adding sections of each step Rwanda took is a nice addition. You might want to add more information about how they can improve the things left in the last section (if that information exists) Your information is balanced and encyclopedic.

Citations: You have a lot of good citations, but there are large gaps missing references at the beginning of your education and healthcare paragraphs that you could add to. Sources: Your sources are good and have academic or reliable sources behind them. Completeness: All references follow the citation model, good work. Mlross18 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Toree Peer Review
Introductory Sentence: Your lead sentence is good and it clearly states your topic Summary: Good summarizing the points in the article. I was a bit confused without headings, but I'm sure you'll have those for the final draft. Context: Your intro paragraph sets up the following sections, good job with that. Organization: It was good but would be much more clear with headings before sections. Content: The information all flows together. I like how you added the steps that Rwanda took. Sources: Your sources are good and are well cited. Completeness: Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toree Thompson (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Tana's Peer Review for Rachel
Rachel, I think your rough draft is really good and you found lots of good information. One suggestion I have is to insert one or two sentences in the beginning that just explain what the article is about entirely, what gender equality is, and/or where Rwanda is located. Then for the second sentence that just generally summarizes the points you discuss. The article is really well organized and all of the information flows very well from one sub topic to another. Maybe for your final you could add bolded subtitles for each topic so for each paragraph it says. For example placing "government" above the paragraph that talks about the government. Just a suggestion though, I still think the article would flow even without these. You did a good job of not having any content gaps and you stuck to using neutral words. Lastly, all of your citations seemed good to me! Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanamoody (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bridget Peer Review
Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence? Yes! Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing? The lead section summarized the major points and it was easy to follow through the rest of the essay.

Is the information included in the summary also present in the body of the article? If not, what needs to be removed from the summary? Are the topics well-organized and divided by headings and subheadings? Does the article cover the topic in organized, logical fashion? If not, how might the author consider revising the article to improve the organization?Has the author added sections added to cover the topic more broadly and fill some existing gaps? If so, what are those additions? What else might be added?What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing? Everything in your intro seemed to be in the following paragraphs. It was a really great read!

Is the coverage of the topic balanced? If not, what could the author add or change to make it seem more balanced? Where does the author present information in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? The coverage of the topic seemed balance. It was factual and had a appropriate tone for the wikipedia requirements.

Where might the author consider revising the essay to make the tone sound more like that of an encyclopedia and less like an argument? Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references? Are the sources cited the best available on the topic? Are they appropriate for the discipline/genre? If not, which sources might need to be changed? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, do they lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view? Do the references include completely filled out citation templates? If not, which ones need to be filled out?

You had a lot of sources which was awesome! The all seemed to be working and appropriate for the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgetedavis (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)