User talk:Savannaellis/sandbox

Hi Savannaellis, I have a few comments on your article evaluation:

Groceryheist (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What information did you feel was missing?
 * Did you make any changes to the article to address the shortcomings you observed? Why or why not?

Sarah's Peer Review
Lead: Good, concise lead. I feel like I know what the article is going to be about and understand the importance. Not too much information in the article itself yet, but I can tell the lead will reflect the content of the article.

Structure: Clear and chronological, from early life to olympics to after the olympic games. Nice job!

Balance: Not enough content to judge for balance yet. No sections seem unnecessary, though there could maybe be more information on Hannah's disease, just so readers know the background/premise of it. The article does not try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view, it's more just a summary of her life. Good job with this.

Content: There is not too much of a perspective or point of view to take on with this article; all content seems neutral.

Sources: The sources seem reliable, but it seems that a large amount of the content is from the first source (Team USA). Make sure all sources are used a fairly equal amount as you finish out writing the article!

Nicely done overall! I really like what you have so far and you did a good job of dividing the content up into comprehensive sections. Good luck as you edit and finish the article!

Srosemont (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Megan
Intro: I think the introduction is good and concise, so you know what the article is going to be about. I think all of your information is relevant and non-biased but in general you just need more information.

Content: The content that you have is good, I think if you pull from a few more sources, your article will become a lot stronger. You also do a good job with hyperlinking other articles so the reader can gain more insight about background information. I am trying to figure this out as well but it would be cool if you added an information box so we could see a picture of her and other information.

Sources: Your sources are good, I think you could just add a few more maybe like an interview or something like that.

Your article is very interesting and I am excited to see how you develop it further! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganjoss (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Article draft feedback
Hi, I'm really happy with the work you've done so far. I think this was a really good choice for an article. The others left you really good feedback all of which I recommend you take. I would reiterate that you would be good to improve the balance between the different soures. Since Team USA is a primary source, you'll want to use it relatively less if possible. That said, if you really can't find the information elsewhere then I say it's ok to cite Team USA :)

I encourage you to polish your article a bit, both by adding more content (which it seems like you have planned to do) and also to focus on writing style. I don't see any major problems there, but its just something that can always be improved. Finally, I think it would be great to add some more Wikilinks to your article. Wikilinks can be a good way to help other editors discover your article. After you publish your article, you might also consider linking to your article from other relevant articles. You should also add your article to relavent categories.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how this develops further! Groceryheist (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)