User talk:Cmsaunders0906/sandbox
The first sentence (and the lead section in general) provides a pretty clear and specific preview of the topic. Although you explained why the topic is important with all his controversies, there is a lot of negative bias towards your topic. So just make your lead section more neutral by just providing information and more neutral words instead of really negatively connotative words like "infamy."
The table of contents includes sections and subsections that makes sense. They go from broad to specific based on years and it makes it really easy to separate his political career. But it would be a lot easier if you put a little title before the years so that it'll be more specific to the years and what he did instead of just looking at numbers, namsayin?
Your sections are pretty well organized. It makes sense to go chronologically down through his life. But the sections can be broken down into a few more subsections (such as in early life, you can separate it into "education," and then "family life," and so on).
The early life section was all under the citation at the end of the section, right?
"As will be discussed later, these experiences influenced him to add Western touches into his campaign, including his sombrero, which became a symbol for his campaign. By age twenty-one, he'd accumulated a stake of $30,000. He returned to Chicago in 1892 after his father's death to manage his estates." No need for the "as will be discussed later" part because (I'm not sure how to explain, but...) I don't usually see that in Wikipedia articles.
Make sure to write in a more neutral tone because this article is negatively biased towards your topic.
So I'm guessing that you haven't finished it yet? I bet there are a lot more information that you can put on here, but you just haven't finished? Some sections that I kind of wish were on there are like his controversies or cases that he has dealt with, policies that he has done, maybe even awards and honors, his death (like how he died and all that). You can try that thing that we did in class where we looked up full and completed articles, jot down their sections, compare those sections, and put those similar sections into your own article.
Citation needed: "He declined to run for reelection in 1923 and he was succeeded by William Emmett Dever. While out of office, Thompson organized a "scientific" expedition to search for tree-climbing fish in the South Seas (actually just a crude attempt to keep his name in the public eye—the expedition never got farther than New Orleans)."
Jenna Heer: Lead Section The first sentence of the lead section is good, the tone however does seem like an ad against this person, understandable because of who he is but try to work on that. Also expand on who he is, there is obviously a lot of controversy surrounding your person so you can easily add more details. Table of Contents looks very good and organized very well, can be broken down further within each section like the politics section. Sections and Subsections The paragraphs are worded nicely and in a very organized manner. There is not too much information but you can add more and expand the sections it doesnt seem like you wrote them all. The information is all cited well. Tone overall the article has a somewhat negative tone in the way that your facts are worded especially in the lead section. Everything else is good. work on tone and adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennaheer (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)