User talk:Seymour butts1

I'm starting your review

Allison Morris' Review of the article "Election Administrators":

Does the lead section summarize the article's key points? What are the key points as you understand them?


 * Yes. The key points are an explanation of the how EA's are chosen, what the structure for Election Administrators is, what their tasks are, the effect of the Help Americans Vote Act, and a summarization of the information key points above.

Is the article's structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings, images and diagrams in appropriate places?


 * The formatting isn't quite in place yet but, the outline is clear and it appears that the group plans to use the appropriate formatting.

How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance?


 * Some of the points have not yet been finished. However, the content that is present is well balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amm349 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the language appropriate? Do the authors use generalized language such as "some" or "many"?


 * Some of the language is a little informal. the article could use a more professional tone.

Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements?


 * No, the only sentance that comes close to that is "it is important to have an strong group of people working to make elections go smoothly". Although it seems like common knowledge, it has an air of opinion without a source.

How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few refrences? Why?


 * The article does not yet contain references.

How would you rate the progress made so far?


 * 3

What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far?


 * The lay out of the article is fantastic. Once it is finished, I have no doubt that it will be a very good and relevant article.

What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group's presentation?


 * I would combine the information in the conclusion with the introductory paragraph and remove the conclusion section.

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the author?


 * Shift the tone of the content from conversational to informative. A good way to see how the article's tone could be improved is by looking at other wiki pages. Also, once the references are added, the tone will change automatically because the statements will become founded immediately.

Joseph Ricard's review of "Election Administrators

Does the lead section summarize the article's key points? What are the key points as you understand them?
 * Yes the article is summarized in the first section and brought full circle in the ending section. The key points are laid out in a very organized easy to follow manner.

Is the article's structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings, images and diagrams in appropriate places?
 * The structure seems to be in place but it does not look quite finished yet

How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance?
 * Overall the key topics look to have equal representation although some are still incomplete.

Is the language appropriate? Do the authors use generalized language such as "some" or "many"?
 * Some of the language may come across as conversational rather than informative.

Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements?
 * No, although making the article more informative rather than conversational could help with ambiguity in some sentences.

How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few refrences? Why?
 * This article didn't contain any references yet.

How would you rate the progress made so far?
 * 3

What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far?
 * The layout looks very promising once the final touches are added on.

What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group's presentation?
 * Still just change the tone of the article, introduction and conclusion read as a bit informal.

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the author?
 * No, everything seems to be heading in the right track and is a very relevant topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsricard (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Election Administrators concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Election Administrators, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Election Administrators


Hello, Seymour butts1. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Election Administrators".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 20:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)