User talk:WavesOfAmur/Cordoba Sandbox Edit 1

4/20/2019 Evaluation by User:BethanyJJohnson
Points: 38 Grade: 95%

Spelling/Grammar - 3 " The Mosque is considered to the largest", should this be "to be the largest"?

Language - 3 "The Mosque was thought to also contain influences of processes learned by Arabic architects through settling in al-Andalus, where their new learned knowledge of jewelry making, silversmithing, and inclusions of Spanish architectural styles and craftsmanship within their own aided in the creation of the Mosque, among other wonders of Islamic architecture, such as The Alcázar of Seville and The Alhambra of Granada." This is a really long sentence, rather hard to read. Is there a way to break this up?

Organization - 4

Coding - 4

Validity - 4

Completion - 4

Relevance - 4

Sources - 4

Citations - 4

References - 4

BethanyJJohnson (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

4.21.19 Evaluation by Joshua Gramley
Hi, Kirill! As with Eric's page, I'm going to try to avoid repeating the feedback I already gave you back on our group thread.

Spelling/Grammar meets/exceeds standards. You already have my minor suggestions on this topic. A quick additional point: I'm not certain why the "ring-shafted thin columns" are in quotes. If it's a specific element of architecture, I expect it should stand on its own without.

Language exceeds standards. Beautiful writing here. Your tone is sufficiently encyclopedic, but still engaging, too, with obvious interest and investment in the material.

Organization exceeds standards. You've done a very nice job of integrating your text with the existing text of the article. I know that's sometimes no easy task. Your additions enrich the existing material, while fitting well with the overall flow of the section.

Coding exceeds standards.

Validity exceeds standards. All claims feel factual, well-rounded, detailed, and well-sourced.

Completion exceeds standards. Your sources are strong, and you have a generous paragraph (or more!) worth of material here.

Relevance exceeds standards. I think you really improve on this section! As I mentioned in the group thread, I really appreciate how your material seems to observe and explain history's influence on the living fabric of the city (well, and the rest of Spain, too). A quick additional thought: I think your text could benefit from a quick explanatory description of that "ataurique" at the very end. Something along the lines of the description on the Alhambra page, for instance.

Sources exceeds standards. It's great that you found three journals for your contribution.

Citations exceeds standards. Everything's in its proper place here.

References meets/exceeds standards. Format looks good. The references page for Córdoba appears to be a little bit of a mess in terms of formatting; I see reference formatting which looks like yours, and (several different examples of) formatting which doesn't. Since it's such a hodgepodge, I'm not really sure what to suggest; it does appear that the majority of the references are in a different format with the link first (what style of reference is this, anyway?), but I believe your style of formatting (APA?) is the second-most popular.

Again, just really nice work here! I'm inspired by the thinking behind your contribution here. Thanks for the opportunity to read it. Joshua Gramley (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

4/24/19 Evaluation by GbrooksPDXStudent

 * Points: 42

Spelling/Grammar Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Not a single spelling error found and grammar was fine.

Language Meets Standard: 4

Fine use of encyclopedic tone and diction

Organization Meets Standard: 4

Could certainly add more flare and flow to the piece, but as a rough draft it's easily readable.

Coding Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Coding and structure of the article appears perfect, I also love the use of bold text to highlight your changes. Definitely something I'll be using for future work.

Validity Meets Standard: 4

Nothing seems too incredible and all information either is sourced or backed up with notable detail.

Completion Meets Standard: 4

Adds plenty of backstory to a prominent feature of the city, glad you included such detail.

Relevance Exceeds Standard: 4.5

The extra information given about the Mosque and it's features is something that was definitely lacking in the original webpage.

Sources Meets Standard: 4

Sources were all academic and present for the information provided.

Citations Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Citations not only are present but appear to be in perfect format.

References Meets Standard: 4

References are all accounted for and in a correctly pre-defined format.

GbrooksPDXStudent (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

5/3/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty good. It would be great if you put these amendments into Wikipedia proper.


 * Points: 40.5/40
 * Grade: 101.25%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard "Mosque" does not need to be capitalized most of the time in this context.

Language
Meets standard Your sentences are proper, but they are very long. Frequently, shorter sentences are preferable than long, complex sentences. Let your reader breathe just a little more.

Organization
Meet standard.

Coding
Meet standard.

Validity
Meets standard.

Completion
Meets standard.

Relevance
Meets standard.