User talk:Sapper77777

Welcome!
Hello, Sapper77777, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Daniels peer review
Peer Review The first sentence of the article gives a good preview on the content of the article. I think it has just enough info without being drawn out. One thing I would probably change is just separating the part that talks about the current Attorney General from the rest of the lead section. It is not very relevant to the first three sentences. The content is definitely more thorough than the current article. All the information is relevant to the article with the exception of the part about the U.S. Attorney General. I would probably leave that out. The article seems pretty impartial to me, it does not take any sides or provide a bias opinion. I do not think any viewpoint is leftout. It just provides factual information. The sources are current and thorough. I am not sure if Ballotpedia is really a reliable source, though. The NAAG source had good info, it could potentially be taken advantage of to expand the article. All the provided links work. The article is very nearly well organized, but I would probably separate the section about Mr Wasden from the lead section. There is no need for them to be connected. There is also some grammatical errors and commas in the wrong place, as well as a sentence that makes no sense. “there is no term limits on how many attempts that an incumbent can run for office” doesn’t really flow. Otherwise the article looks good. My overall impression is good, I think it greatly improves on the original article, providing significantly more information. It just needs a couple little tweaks. I think it would be improved by moving the section about Wasden away from the lead section and slimming down the part about the U.S. Attorney General. Sapper77777 (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Daniel Richmond