User talk:Amm349

I read the article about Single Member District and overall it is a good unbiased article. I like the fact that at the top of the page it says the key points on what the article was going to be about like an abstract. Breaking down the topics of its history and how it works federal, state, local made me comprehend more on the topic of Single Member District. Also talking about the issues and the viewpoints gave me an in-depth view on what thoughts are on single member district. The citations seem to be in check and credible.

Hi, Amm349, after reading the article and answering Hanks questions, I found a few things that should be addressed. First, I feel like the introduction is more of what the article will hopefully teach you, rather than introducing the actual subject matter. The image under local is pretty small and not really useful, I also noticed that some of the headings are bold, while others are not, I would recommend picking one style and working with it. The sections for Federal and State are shorter than the others, and History is very long compared to the rest of the article. All of the citations are helpful, I feel that you should work on the placement of the cite numbers especially after the heading of Minority. I clicked on a few of the links under References and noticed that some made you log in to Texas State before being able to view them, this could potentially make it difficult for outside readers to use this article. Overall I felt the article was solid and could be useful. I think the two biggest changes need to happen in the sources, making sure all are useful without being a Texas State student, think of the larger audience of Wikipedia, and the second being the content, make sure they are closer in length and one is not getting more attention than another. Thank you for letting me review your article, I enjoyed it, and look forward to seeing the finished product. Emily Grobe (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Katie Orr's Peer Review

Which article are you reviewing? Single-member district

Does the lead section summarize the article’s key points? What are the key points of the article as you understand them? The history section of this article is long as most history sections are. The key points of this article is to inform the general public of the use of single member districts. Through the different types of government, federal, state, and local.

Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? Yes, the article is structured with headings and sub headings that are not only interesting but make perfect sense. The titles are History, Federal, State (sub heading -minorities issues), Local, and Contentious Viewpoints.

How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? The history is longer, as to be expected in most Wiki pages. But the proportion of the remainder sections make sense and are equal.

Is the language appropriate? Do the authors use generalized language such as “some,” or “many”? Could these references be replaced with fact? The language of the article is professional and concise. I did run across a 3 "somes" and 2 "manys" throughout the article, and quiet possibly could easily be sourced by factual information.

Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements? For the most part the information in the article is sourced and factual statements.

How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why? As stated above the few amount of un sourced statements could easily be backed up and sourced through further research and attention.

How would you rate the progress made so far? If i were to rate the progress of this page thus far I would give it a 8 (out of 10, right? lol)

What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I like the last sub heading ,"contentious view points" , it adds the integrity and unbiased atmosphere that Wikipedia takes great pride in.

What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group’s presentation? The very first portion of the article, telling the audience what "their" purpose of the actual page, is unnecessary. Possibly add more citations and get rid of the "somes" and "manys"

How would such improvements contribute to the article’s quality? By adding sources the page will gain notability and by deleting the "disclaimer" at the begging will add to the pages confidence.

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the authors? Job well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmo26 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)