Talk:Marilyn Montenegro

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Nathan's Revisions

Title is perfect
First sentence is direct and useful
The lead provides a great well-rounded summary of the article
Everything seems to be written in your owns words
Article is very easily interpreted by a non-expert
The purpose section seems to draw too many conclusions for the reader about her beliefs, its better to provide facts and allow the reader to decipher her values for themselves
Change "apart" to "a part"
I believe the contents breakdown is supposed to be below the lead of the article but besides that the article is formatted great
Maybe use in-text citations more frequently, it is hard to tell where each statement is sourced from

Longnat (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Jiao's peer revision

The first thing I'd like to say is that the wealth of information and the way you balance the information throughout the article is great. Next are the problems to address. To start it off simply, I fixed grammatical errors such as "active" to "activated", and "dedicated" to "dedication" in the first paragraph. I also changed "criminals" to "people" in the fourth passage to make it sound better. Another thing I did, was adding hyperlinks to terms that the audience might be interested to learn more about. I also improved neutrality by deleting "flawed" from "flawed justice system" since it sounds like persuasive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiaodn (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce's revision

there is a article title
the first sentence is great
all five added sources are present
The summary and content of the article is good
The organization seems to be good
The tone is appropriate, there isn't one view being expressed, and the text is neutral.
the citation and sources are correct
The article coverage and new sections have all needed info

This article is really good, good job.