User talk:Srr032/sandbox

PEER EVALUATION
Good job, Srr032, you covered all of the questions for the "evaluation" assignment. Keep an eye out for spelling (defiantly - definitely) opportunities within your articles. A good practice is to utilize Word or Google Docs for your rough draft and use the spell check features to ensure you haven't missed anything. Once checked and reevaluated then copy/paste onto the Wikipage for a final product. Also, remember even though you answered all of the questions for the assignment in regards to editing or research, use the assignment as practice for your writing skills. You have all of the information needed to complete your evaluation, but the sentences are somewhat choppy and don't always flow well. Use full sentences and work on word flow to ensure ease of reading from one topic to another. Do this and you will definitely end up with a great article for all to read. Keep up the good work and good luck on your assignments. Astrorocket2108 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Astrorocket2108

Peer Evaluation
Some of the of what you wrote under the history section contains incomplete sentences like "Such as a comparison to Medieval Art to Renaissance Art." which you could combine with the sentence before. You should also take a look at what other sentences you can join together to make the section flow more smoothly. Like the person above me said, you can use Word or other applications such as Grammarly to double check your sentence structure and flow. lan023 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC) lan023

Peer Review
I think your work on art history is at a good start. But I think many of your sentences in the first paragraph are really short and instead could be combined together just so it doesn't sound as choppy. For example the sentence "Art can be shown by attire, architecture, religion, sports." could be combined with the sentence that follows it. This will help your grammar and sentence structure as well because your technically not supposed to start a new sentence with the word "Or". In the second paragraph, It would be good to add wikilinks to whatever names you reference too just so your reader can automatically click on the name of a person and see who they are. Overall I think your work is good and with more research and time it will be great. Vanilla.swirl14 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think overall your review is well done. However, it was a little bit dull to read due to the choppy sentences you have. But you did have a clear structure spread throughout your draft. Content and points I feel were neutral. However, I feel as though you may not have enough supporting material to have a reliable approach to the subject. Maybe add a little more concrete facts? Maybe some supporting facts from scholars related to this subject? Yet, overall well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbaird99 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)