User talk:RosasD4600/sandbox

Hey, I know you've just started your article, but here's my evaluation of what you have so far.

General Info Whose work are you reviewing? RosasD4600 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RosasD4600/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No

Lead evaluation: Needs to be added

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content missing, being added

Content evaluation: Off to a good start

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

no

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

no

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

no

Tone and balance evaluation: Good at staying factual

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

no

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

yes

Are the sources current?

yes

Check a few links. Do they work?

yes

Sources and references evaluation: Good start with sources, but need to add citations to history section

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, but some sentences could be broken up to increase readability

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

no

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

yes

Organization evaluation: Good start, work on breaking down material into smaller sentences so it's easier to read

Images and media evaluation: N/A  For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?

Yes

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

Only one source so far, definitely need more

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?

yes

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

no

New Article Evaluation: Good foundation, but the article needs more sources and variety of links

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

yes

What are the strengths of the content added?

Good at staying factual, good organization, good variety of information

How can the content added be improved?

add more content, add more sources, add relevant links Catherine G Hernandez (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)