User talk:Subzero10/Draft Wikipedia

Draft
, this isn't much of a draft yet--and it sounds very much like the thing I mentioned in class. That's not bad in itself, but that's about all this is... Dr Aaij (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
It is clear that you are arguing that Wikipedia is reliable in the sense that vandalism is taken seriously and is corrected. Your first sentence is more of an introductory sentence, but the rest of the paragraph seems like it would be in an evidence based paragraph. You could be more specific about other ways Wikipedia is reliable, as well as including quotes in your paragraphs. From the source that I can see, it seems reliable, but not much content can be read without a subscription. Stacy.johnson515 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
Your argument seems pretty clear. I would suggest including more evidence to support your argument. The second source you have seems reliable. For the first source, you could add a URL, but it does seem reliable as well.Aumgirl2024 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)