User talk:Ruthaxton/sandbox2

PEER REVIEW; −	https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tonv5uSb0xHkKnm_Q7JL5ncm6wFj17a4QaQmabP33E/edit −		 −	Navneet Khaira Peer Review −	1. Yes, I believe this article provides a substantial summary for the main points to be discussed in the article--it is not based in opinion, but more so in a neutral, factual manner. −	2. There is some information that is missing in the article. There are headers within the article that are unelaborated on--are these supposed to be there? (ie. biography, career, early career) −	3. Yes, I believe  that the links provided helps to further explain the discussion of later  career (Alaska), however, is there more links that you  could use that would help to  elaborate  more on the three headers that remain undiscussed? Maybe more research is needed to fill in those holes. −	4. Yes, there is incorporation of external links where it needs to be. I found those links helpful in referencing where the information was derived. −	5. I  believe this article would  benefit from elaboration on the missing sections--could you  by  chance take out  the parts that were not  elaborated upon? Maybe you could combine two of  the sections so that there would be more information on her  early  career. Finally, I believe this article did a fantastic job in adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. The information was portrayed in a neutral fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkhaira (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC) −		 −	Palmer Nix Peer Review: −		 −	1. The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents? −		 −	 Absolutely! This lead section does a great job of giving clear insight for what to expect and the main points included. −		 −		 −	2. The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) −	and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors? −		 −	 Great sourcing! There are plenty of sources at the bottom of the page. I do not see any errors in the sourcing here. −		 −		 −	3. Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? −		 −	The links I see make clear and concise sense, not missing any as far as I can tell. −	−		 −	4. Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? −	 The blue hyperlinks are a great feature! −		 −		 −	5. What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are −	available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons? −		 −		 −	Fantastic job incorporating sources that blend well with the text to create a clear and informative wiki page. Overall, I would suggest adding more info of her background, but other than that this is a great page. −		 −		 −		 −		 −		 −		 −		 −	Chloe Kekedjian - Wiki Peer Review −		 −		 −	1.	The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents? −		 −	Yes, the lead section contains an overview of the career accomplishments and life of Audrey Aanes. There are some pieces of information missing, but they were indicated to be filled in later. −	2.	The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) −	and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors? −		 −	The writing is overall good and has sources for pretty much every sentence. There aren’t any major errors. The tone of the writing may come across as slightly positive towards her accomplishments, but not to an extent where it is unbiased. −		 −	3.	Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? −		 −	There are a few links to other pages. I think there is a lot of potential for linking to articles about the programs she organized (if they have Wikipedia pages) and other ideas around disability activism. −		 −	4.	Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? −		 −	There are external links in the citations, they make sense and the links work. I don’t have any suggestions to improve this. −		 −	5.	What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are −	available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons? −		 −	This piece could benefit from some more general biographic information. It does adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines for women. It was unclear from the article if she is dead or alive, but the article is written mostly in the past tense (even with general statements). −		 −	Cgk38 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Chloe Kekedjian −		 −

Steph Lin Peer Review
−	1. The lead gives a clear overview of the Audrey Aames, some information is missing but there is a good framework to build upon. −	2. Writing is largely neutral however, takes a positive tone in some places. −	3. Potential for further linking as article develops. −	4. Eternal links in citations make sense and work. −	5. Some more structure would be good to help the reader follow Aame's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slin3399 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)