User talk:Tessa.l.cooper/sandbox

Introductory Sentence: Great introductory sentence, is very clear and concise. Summary: I see that you didn’t make any changes to the introductory paragraph from the original Wikipedia page which I think is okay. I would recommend maybe expanding it a little bit if possible just because it is on the brief side. Context: it appears that everything in the introductory is also in the body so good job there! Organization: It think you did a great job of breaking the article up into different categories especially since you were not working with much to begin with! I might switch her biography and political activism sections around or add biography to early life, I don’t know just for flow of type of information for the reader’s sake, especially since the biography section is so small. Content: I love the sections you added specifically the Political Activism one. She is a political activist so that clearly needed to be added in. I think that you remained neutral in your additions which is always important. I might add a section of her current work because the last date I saw you mention was 2010. Maybe change the biography section to current work and just try to expand on the things she may have done in the last 8 years. For the accolades section I have seen a lot of Wikipedia pages simply list them which expands the section and in my opinion make it look for impressive, so that is another suggestion I would make. Citations: Fantastic job citing your sources. For the rough draft I would just make sure you indicate where your reference section actually is. Sources: All of your sources look credible to me! Completeness: Complete! Overall I think you have done a really great job and just have some little tweaks here and there before you turn in the final draft! Caddiedull (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Caddie Dull

Peer Review
Introductory Sentence: Your intro sentence gives a good overview of what your article is about. Good job! Summary: The introduction needs a bit of expanding. Maybe just a few more sentences outlining what your article will be about. Context: Besides expanding a little bit more and adding more information, everything in the intro looks good and credible. Organization: Your article is really well organized. The heading make it very clear and easy to navigate! I think the order of the sections is good too and flow nicely. Content: Your political activism section is definitely your most developed and I think this one is really well done! However, I think you could add a little more information to the biography and books sections since they have very little as of now. Citations: You cited all your sources. Sources: All are credible! Completeness: Complete. Brooke Balthrope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookebalthrope (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

peer review
You did a really great job editing the article. It is nice and informative without it being really overwhelming. I am wondering though if the whole section for books was necessary for just one book. Also maybe you could add a little bit more to the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schu13 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)