User talk:Shams albeshawi/sandbox

Brittany's peer review:

The lead article is very informational and precise. It doesn’t talk about the majority of the article but it is concise and not overly detailed. The content is relative to the article topic and very organized which makes it easy for the viewer to read. The tone and balance of the article are very neutral and I don’t see any bias from the writers of the article. Any bias that might be noted is when it comes to the “Beliefs on Current Issues”, but most of this information is based off of what the Idaho Libertarian Party believes, which is good content and information for readers who want to understand. For sources, double check your sources “retrieved” dates. When did the group retrieve these sources? It’s fine if the sources are older but it’s good to know when the group researched their sources. Also, I noticed most of the current issues had accurate references, but what about Healthcare? Where did you get your information for this sentence? All of the sources are very informational and worked when I clicked the link. For some tips, double check grammar and punctuation in the lead paragraph. Overall impression is great. Good job guys!Blcummings (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Brittany

Koal's Peer Review
The lead for the Idaho Libertarian party clearly describes what the topic is along with concisely states what it is. The part they added to the lead looks to be short that does say what will be talked about. The lead was updated to the new info the group was adding. The lead is pretty concise, so I would not say its overly detailed. The content does seem to be relevant to the topic. The content is up to date with the information presented. The political views seem to be what they are now. I don't really see any information that the content is missing based off what i saw. The group has the content that is relevant to the topic. The content is very neutral in the sense it is just telling about their views and the group didn't say anything bias. None of the information presented seems to be heavily bias towards a particular position making the site neutral still. The viewpoints also don't seem to be over represented, some may look like a lot of words, but they seem to be necessary for the bullets .Some of the sources I am seeing have .com, and .com is noted to not being a reliable source. The reliable sources however, are tending to be very thorough along with being current. The links all seem to work correctly in taking the viewer to the original page. The content is well written on the page and stays neutral. The page is also easy to read. I did not notice and grammar or spelling errors while reviewing the page. For what is on the page, the content is well organized having subtopics for different things. The overall impression from the content on this topic looks to have improved the quality of the topic, bring in more information and insight into the topic. Adding the history was a good strength for giving a background to how it was formed. I’m not sure how the content can be improved more based off what I have read. Rourickkoal (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Koal

Jack's Peer Review: The lead paragraph is very straight to the point and informative of what the article is about. The lead describes their core beliefs before getting to the main body paragraph about the parties beliefs. All the content in the article is relevant to the topic, although it should discuss more about Idaho's Libritarian Party rather than the Libritarian party. The could be more information for most of the body paragraphs, there are a lot of topics that you could expand on. All information is present from a neutral standpoint. The article maintains a very formal tone and the information is balanced. The first source is missing a title, and some information was said to be retrieved back in 2017. There could also be more sources from The Idaho Libritarian Party itself. Organization is clear and easy to read and reference. The overall quality of the article is very good and straight to the point. JDMarmor (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Jack

Hayley's Peer Review:

The Lead Section: There is a clear concise introduction opening sentence that describes the topic well. However, there is no brief description of the major section of the article. The newly added content the group has added gives the readers a better understanding of what the rest of the article consists of.

Content: The added contents to the article all tie into the main topic of subject really well and is new up to date relevant statements. Possibly add more information about who established the Libertarian party and the statistics of how many people are currently apart of the party. Also, maybe mention if there ever was a popularly known figure that was apart of the party as well.

Tone and balance: The content is fairly neutral, stating what the party believes in. Given the topic of a political party it seems to be difficult to not be biased considering the different ways of trying to portray a certain perspective as long as facts are given not personal opinions.

Sources and references: Yes, all the information that is presented is backed up with some sort of source. Sources are current, up to date, and do work just fine.

Organization: Content of the article is well written, clear and, concise. The sections are broken up into clear parts of the article. No grammatical or spelling errors that I came across.

Overall impressions: The new content that the group added was done very well which added a lot more depth and quality considering there was not a lot to begin with in the original wikipedia article. The strength of the article was new added information and much more resources. The content can be improved by adding a bit more history and go into more depth of how many members the party initially started with. Also, any accomplishments that have been made by the party. But, other then that, great work!Hayleyalvarez (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Hayley Alvarez