User talk:Toree Thompson/sandbox

Miranda Ross Peer Review

Nice work! This was easy to follow and you clearly added valuable information to your stub!

Introductory Sentence: I love your intro sentence, it's clear and gives me a background for the whole article. Summary: Your summary mirrors the next topic you work on so that works really well! Context: Nothing needs to be removed from the summary! Organization: This was clear to follow and the headings worked well. Content: The content is for the most part very factual, maybe rewrite the first sentence of the political section to add more statistics instead of "nearly non-existent" Citations: Every statement has a citation, so good work on your research. Sources: the sources are academic and well rounded. Completeness: all resources are complete! Mlross18 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bridget Peer Review

Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence? Yes! Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing? Nothing is missing, this is a really well written.

Is the information included in the summary also present in the body of the article? If not, what needs to be removed from the summary? Are the topics well-organized and divided by headings and subheadings? Does the article cover the topic in organized, logical fashion? If not, how might the author consider revising the article to improve the organization?Has the author added sections added to cover the topic more broadly and fill some existing gaps? If so, what are those additions? What else might be added?What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing? The paragraph you added was interesting and relevant to your introductory paragraph.

Is the coverage of the topic balanced? If not, what could the author add or change to make it seem more balanced? Where does the author present information in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I think your article is well-stated and follows encyclopedia guidelines. I enjoyed reading yours and didn't see any biased statetments.

Where might the author consider revising the essay to make the tone sound more like that of an encyclopedia and less like an argument? Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references? Are the sources cited the best available on the topic? Are they appropriate for the discipline/genre? If not, which sources might need to be changed? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, do they lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view? Your references seemed to be from reputable sources, I didn't notice any websites that were not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgetedavis (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)