User talk:Srosemont/sandbox

You article selection seems like a good choice! Don't worry about copyright infringement as long as you use your own words! Groceryheist (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, where is your article? I am in charge of doing a peer review but cannot seem to find it. Thanks! Jasmair (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Jasmair's Peer Review
Hey, just wanted to start off by saying that I liked how you created a new article, a different approach from what a lot of other people are doing and I would argue, a harder process as well. To make this an easier structure as a peer review to follow, I'm going to give you feedback of things that worked well and things that could be done better section by section rather than giving you just positives and then things to improve. There is a lot of feedback that I provide, so if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page, ping me, or catch me before or after class.

Overall: I saw how at the end you have bullets you still need to work on. That's helpful for me as a peer reviewer because you know those are things you need to improve and still need to complete, so I do not have to analyze those parts. Also, this is a general Wikipedia rule/norm, don't forget to cite your sources at the end of whichever sentence you got your source from. I would recommend looking at a few articles to see what I mean. It is a superscript with a number in it (for example, [1] as a superscript). This is also good because it will create a "References" section for you, so you won't need to figure out how to format that. Furthermore, it'll make it easier for everyone to read and verify your sources. I had to bounce around between your sources to figure it out, but regardless, I think this is a notable article to be writing about, so good job on selecting something that was previously deleted but is notable. Keep in mind that when you do add these edits into the article, you might have to argue why you believe this article is notable since it has a history of being deleted off of Wikipedia. Also, you'll see below, I added some thoughts on where you should do hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles.

The Mission: I think this section is great. I would actually make this your lead section rather than creating a separate section that says mission. This section and what you typed would be a great section to put into your lead and introduce people to this article. Please remember to put it in your own words, and if it is not in your own words, such as the mission itself does not need to be in your own words, to quote whatever you are taking out from one of your sources and cite your source. Also, I would recommend adding a Wikipedia link to "Western Kentucky University."

Executive Director: This is a great section to include and was very well written. I like the idea of having this as a section because once the executive director changes, it will encourage Wikipedians to come back to this article and update it. Which means that there will be activity that continues on this article.

Jasmair (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation
Looking at your article, it is evident you already have a clear sense of your overall structure for the content and it's one that seems to make sense for your topic and covers the different areas you need to elaborate on. I also note the list you made at the bottom which explains the topics and areas you're moving onto next but have yet to write about, and I think those will all be very valuable to future readers of this article. I think you could potentially - if it seems fit when you go on to include more information - that you could move the 'Executive Director' information into 'History' to just make the article more condensed and informative. It seems you have added information mostly to the 'Mission' and 'Executive Director' sections the most so definitely elaborate on the others - especially the lead - when you get a chance!

What you have written maintains a neutral viewpoint and definitely does not try to convince the reader of anything - great job here. It seems you have included some great information but have yet to site it to your sources, so I would definitely do that when you get a chance. As far as your sources, it seems you have a variety in terms of their quality so potentially consider looking at journal articles (or other reliable sources) to strengthen your article overall.

Overall, this seems like a really interesting topic. I would maybe shorten down some of your sentences so they can be more straight to the point and it is very clear what they are trying to say. I think this would just make it easier for mass consumption of the article. But I'm excited to see the end result when you go on to add more information and elaborate on the different areas. (Savannaellis (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Feedback on Article Draft
Hi, I'm happy to see some nice progress on your article. The others left you some really awesome feedback already, but I'll just emphasize that you'll need to add in-text citations! This seems like a really great choice for an article. I'm happy to give you more feedback when you're further along, just WP:ping  me Groceryheist (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)