User talk:Rrennecker/sandbox

Hi Rebecca! Here's some feedback on your article. 1. Is the content added neutral? The only line that may not be neutral is “giving it the fizziness that many enjoy from 			carbonated beverages.” It’s probably fine, but can come off as advertise-y. I think people also get this impression from the next line where it says it’s an alternative to soda. 2. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No 3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No 4. Does the content attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No 5. Sources and References: You should not use Crystal Geyser’s own site as a source. You should be able to find a good scientific paper about the affect sparkling water has on teeth. 6. Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Same as above, anything from Crystal Geyser’s own site can be considered biased information. 7. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Mostly, see above 8. Are the sources current? Yes 9. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. 10. Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? 11. Your article is overall easy to read, though it does get wordy in some places. In the “About” section I would suggest reordering it so that the partnership name is first, otherwise when you start reading it looks like it’s an article about Crystal Geyser in general. 12. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Looks good 13. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would break down the sections to be more specific. I think you can turn the ‘water sources” section into two: sources (this would be the second paragraph you have there) and water chemistry (pH, TDS levels). This would be about the water as it naturally flows, then the next section would be about carbonation, like you have. The last paragraph could even be its own section, something like “health concerns/impacts.” 14. Images and Media: This is a common item so you could probably get a picture at a store, but under the circumstances that is easier said than done. 15. 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 16. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? You could probably find more on the water chemistry and health effects. 17. 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? See comments about organization above. If you think those are too many sections or would be too short, consider doing subsections. 18. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes 19. Overall impressions Looks really good so far! I think you can expand on a few things or add links to more info that already exist in Wiki (for example the page on carbonated water). The carbonation section focuses more on what carbonation does to the water versus what is done to water to carbonate it. Depending on what you want the focus of that section to be, I suggest changing the heading or adding more info on how it is done. ARKashuba (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anna, I appreciate your feedback on my draft for this wiki article. Your advice of removing the Crystal Geyser website as a source really helped, I had completely forgot that was one of the things we couldn't use as a source! Also, your formatting feedback was very helpful as I rearranged my article sections and expanded a new section on water chemistry. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrennecker (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it helpful. I think the changes you've made look great! Thank you fro your feedback. I'm working on clarifying the Assembly Bill section. ARKashuba (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)