User talk:Wags1234/sandbox

Lots of work has been put into the contributions of the article, Economy of Guatemala and Sustainable Agriculture. The opening sentence(s) of each section provide an overview of what the section is going to consist of. The information is presented in an orderly manner and is very well organized since it does not have unnecessary information that should be placed elsewhere. For the most part, the articles seem to be written in an encyclopedic tone. One of the instances that I noticed non-neutral tone would be when the phrase “benefits of globalization” is presented. The information has been divided into their necessary sections with enough detail for the reader to understand why this information is of importance. No section seems as if more attention is attributed to it since they are all around the same length and have the same amount of detail (describing the section). Some of the sections vary from having information from various sources, but other sections such as Sustainable agriculture in the Anthropocene and Gender only provides information from one source. This is not a big deal, since it does not necessary force the reader to think a certain way on the topic (since information is being presented, not an actual viewpoint). I think this is one thing that needs the most work with your contributions, having various sources throughout the section. All of the references used so far are from reliable sources. Small grammatical issues are present in the contributions such as “Soil erosion is fast becoming one of the world's severe problems” but will surely be fixed before moving over to the mainspace as it will be reviewed and edited. Overall great work so far. Reading this was pleasurable and did not seem as if you had many issues/errors. It has even given me insight on how to continue on my own wikipedia contributions (advice since I was a bit confused on encyclopedic tone). Great example as to what my work and contributions should look like. Keep doing what you're doing! --Samnegrete (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Sam Negrete
Lots of work has been put into the contributions of the article, Economy of Guatemala and Sustainable Agriculture. The opening sentence(s) of each section provide an overview of what the section is going to consist of. The information is presented in an orderly manner and is very well organized since it does not have unnecessary information that should be placed elsewhere. For the most part, the articles seem to be written in an encyclopedic tone. One of the instances that I noticed non-neutral tone would be when the phrase “benefits of globalization” is presented. The information has been divided into their necessary sections with enough detail for the reader to understand why this information is of importance. No section seems as if more attention is attributed to it since they are all around the same length and have the same amount of detail (describing the section). Some of the sections vary from having information from various sources, but other sections such as Sustainable agriculture in the Anthropocene and Gender only provides information from one source. This is not a big deal, since it does not necessary force the reader to think a certain way on the topic (since information is being presented, not an actual viewpoint). I think this is one thing that needs the most work with your contributions, having various sources throughout the section. All of the references used so far are from reliable sources. Small grammatical issues are present in the contributions such as “Soil erosion is fast becoming one of the world's severe problems” but will surely be fixed before moving over to the mainspace as it will be reviewed and edited. Overall great work so far. Reading this was pleasurable and did not seem as if you had many issues/errors. It has even given me insight on how to continue on my own wikipedia contributions (advice since I was a bit confused on encyclopedic tone). Great example as to what my work and contributions should look like. Keep doing what you're doing!

(sorry for posting it twice) --Samnegrete (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)