Jump to content

User talk:Cattbrown86/sandbox/Riga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3/20 Evaluation by user:Avictory

[edit]
Spelling & Grammar:
[edit]

-Both are great! -"According to the Central Statics Bureau..." (Statistics?)

Language:
[edit]

-Very good. Encyclopedic in tone, concise, and proper.

Organization:
[edit]

-Great!

Coding:
[edit]

-No coding errors in your references. -One minor thing: all of your in-text citations are spaced from the end punctuation. They should be right off the sentence.

Completeness:
[edit]

-Each section looks good and complete. I assume you're still going to add to the "sex industry" part.

Relevance:
[edit]

-Everything is relevant!

Citations:
[edit]

-Needs one more. -All others open to legitimate, solid sources.

Hi Caitlin! This is very well-written; you did a really great job!Avictory (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Evaluations

[edit]

3/21/2018 Evaluation by Reesehanson

[edit]

Reese Hanson (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018

Spelling/Grammar

[edit]

Exceeds Standards Everything looks perfect.

Language

[edit]

Meets standards Very good diction.

Organization

[edit]

Exceeds Standards It was broken up by section very well.

Coding

[edit]

Meets Standards Everything looks good, can't find any errors.

Validity

[edit]

Meets Standards Everything was sourced to information and looks valid.

Completion

[edit]

Complete Very complete with lots of interesting information.

Relevance

[edit]

Meets Standards All the information looked relevant and was current.

Sources

[edit]

Meets standards All sources look to be up to standards.

Citations

[edit]

Meets Expectations There are no errors in the citations and all look good.

References

[edit]

Meets Standards Again everything looks good!.