User talk:Ziggystardust20/sandbox

Liam Message. Ziggystardust20 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

This article about Billie Jean King is in a pretty organized order. However, it needs a better transition from the second paragraph to the third paragraph, for it goes from talking about King’s match and her accomplishment afterwards to talking about the song Elton dedicated to King, which was mentioned in the first paragraph. Maybe the second paragraph should go first, and the first paragraph go second.

I could not guess the perspective of the author by reading this article. There are no words/phrases in the article that do not feel neutral. Most of the article includes facts with sources and citations. Fix: “King is now known as a” “champion for social change and equal rights.” Fix: “King told Eltonjohn.com that they (she and Elton) did not want the song to be about tennis.” *External link on Elton John is in this sentence…maybe put it on the first time you mentioned Elton John instead.

The article did well on informing about Billie Jean King and her accomplishment in changing how people view her and women after her “Battle of the Sexes” tennis exhibition match.

Gpante1 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

• Everything is on topic and is and each section length seems a little equal to the topic. • I think the article got almost all viewpoints • No I don’t think I could guess the authors view point, I could tell that they did research on this person though. • The article seems neutral, it seem like there’s facts to back up this article. • The article does not make claims, everything seems research and stated correctly. • The article states negative and positive so that’s good. Its all not bad or good it has clear reflection. • Most statements come from journal articles. • Used all sources and they are all connected to the correct links. • This article is informative to a person who may not know Billie Jean King and states some interesting facts and stories. • Add a little more about her , some other interesting things good or bad. • I think the article is very informative , just could add more

Jalshenique (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Jalshenique Cooper

I can guess that you are for woman’s equality. You do not touch on the negative side of King winning the match. Like how men feel about playing against woman, or them receiving the same prize amount. This article is good about citing the names of people they quoted. This article focuses too much on the positive outcome of woman’s equality after this tennis match. The writer quotes people who are happy for this outcome but does not cover anything that is said negatively about this event. Your sources look good. I can open them all and see you have the correct amount of academic and popular sources. Also, you used your links very well. Pros: I like that you put your internal links on the names of the people you were talking about. Maybe you could add an internal link when you say (Roe v. Wade). Cons:

Fix when you say… “ranked the World Number 1 woman’s player…” Unless that is exactly how the quote appears, you should say “world’s number one” (write out the number one).

Starting the last paragraph about “the song” is confusing. Maybe address what song you are talking about first. To improve the article, I would advise reading it out loud. The flow of your article is a little confusing. I had to go back and re-read some of the sentences you made to understand what you are saying (like talking about cheering from the hotel room). Your article helped me realize how I need to use my internal and external links better. Overall good job! SmallTowne12 (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)