User talk:Tmontford/sandbox

1) Does the first sentence define the topic? Is it clear and specific? How would you improve it? Does the lead section answer the additional questions: What is the topic's context? Why is it significant? Are there any controversies surrounding it? Overall, does the lead section operate effectively as a SUMMARY of the rest of the article? A: The lead is clear and specific--good idea including both the general and legal definition. Overall, the lead does a good job addressing the significance of it as a topic, and does a good job briefly yet clearly explaining the controversies surrounding it. One suggestion would be to add a phrase or sentence that adds more a little context to HIV itself (you didn't mention specifically that it was a syndrome/disease) for people who may be unaware or uneducated on what it is. Operates successfully as a summary of the rest of the article.

2) Do the sections and sub-sections in the TOC make sense? Are they too broad or too specific? Are there titles that seem confusing? Are they in order that makes most sense? Do they actually help you navigate the article? A: Table of Contents is clear. As a suggestion, it might make sense to group stigma and societal relations as subcategories under a similar section such as "Impact" or "Influence on Society", that way you have a broad yet distinct category that breaks down further into these two sections. Titles make sense and don't cause confusion. Contents are in clear order and easy to navigate.

3) Section Organization: Does the content fit with the section header? Would it be better in a different section? Paragraph Organization: Does the organization within each paragraph make sense? How could you improve with flow and readability within and among paragraphs? Content: Where is there too much info? Where is there not enough? Is it specific or does it include generalities and vague statements? Citations: Are statements cited? A: Yes, all content fits with their respective header or title. Organization of paragraphs makes sense. For societal relationships, there could possibly be more specific information, as you only cited one source. I'm not sure if it was a typo, but at the end of the last paragraph in the Societal Relations section, there is a sentence that uses "we" and "need", so unless this is a direct quote you should change it to sound more objective. Good start with citations especially in the Stigma section.

4) Does the article sound "encyclopedic"? Is it neutral and objective rather than biased and opinionated? Is it formal rather than colloquial or informal? A: Article sounds encyclopedic and informative. The only thing is as mentioned before, the part in Societal Relations that uses "we" and "need", but if that's a direct quote then it's fine. Formal tone is employed for the remainder of the article. Good job C: Acarmona124 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions to stop the article sounding promotional
I hope this helps. Also, I would not set much store by the comments above from Acarmona24, who appears to be inexperienced at using wikipedia.Deb (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not use the first name "Stephanie" as if you knew the subject of the article. Use her surname throughout.
 * 2) Remove the integral link to the HarperOne advertising page in the second line.
 * 3) "Stephanie recounts the months leading up to that fateful moment and what she had encountered while dead." Apart from the weird use of the pluperfect, words like "fateful" only belong in an advert. We don't use them here.
 * 4) Stephanie seeks to instill her message wherever she can: “If you SENSE something, SAY something.” Well, maybe she does, but that's advertising. Okay for her to do it through her own publicity machine but not for you to repeat it here.
 * 5) "loving mother" - that can only be a matter of opinion so it's not NPOV.