User talk:Dgenners/sandbox

First Edits

Well done! I think that you presented the information in a concise, professional, and unbiased manner. The citations were a bit difficult to follow because of the two “References” sections, so re-organizing that could make following citations easier for readers; however, the sources are all reliable as far as I can tell. First, I’m glad that you changed the lead a bit, it covers the span of the article more effectively. However, I would consider removing some of the broader statements from the end of the lead and adding more facts, just to give the article a more professional edge. Although I recognize that this is an early draft, my primary criticism would be lack of detail; for instance, the article mentions that she co-founded the Independent Democratic Pole Party, and although there is a link that gives information about the party, you don’t discuss Lozano’s role beyond that sentence. I think the information that is present is great, but there are a lot of opportunities to go back and explain something further or add more details across the board. Another suggestion I would make would be to discuss opposition to Lozano’s views. You have a “Controversy” section, which is wonderful, and I think that could be a great place to add opposing viewpoints and opposition to some of her activism and legislation. This would provide more context and make the article more balanced and neutral. Overall, really well done, and continue adding as much as you can!

Grace Elliott (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your article! I believe itt was very organized and that it was well thought out. I think the tone is very neutral all throughout. I felt it flow very easily with one event leading to another but I do think that maybe you could balance it somewhat more. I think there can be more use of scholarly articles, and other sources than just using some websites. However, from the sources you have used, I believe they have allowed you create good neutral substance of this. I also think that the lead is very straightforward and there can be a little more to it but overall it looks good. I do think you did a good job though of citing multiple times over and over in paragraphs to make sure your statements look credible. Overall, I think that it all is concise and relatable to the central topic. I just think if you add diversify sources and maybe write more too each section you'll have a great article. Collegekid2020 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)