User talk:Hmcclenn
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Wyoming/Architectural_History_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Hmcclenn, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
September 2019
[edit]
Hello, I'm Everedux. An edit you recently made to Amsterdam University College seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Everedux (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Editing User talk:Hmcclenn
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review. Whose work are you reviewing? Hmcclenn Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hmcclenn/sandbox
Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, Hmcclenn has done a good job adding new relevant information. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes good, relevant and interesting content is present. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, good use of new information and additional sources. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, could use more detail in areas. Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all content is relevant. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all content seems to be up-to-date and recent sources. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing seems to be missing, good array of sources.
Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Content is written in a neutral tone without bias. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, good balance. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? From what I can tell, yes. Are the sources current? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.
Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is well written, relevant, concise, clear, and easy to read. Is easliy understood by most readers. Does the content add have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes well organized and reflects major topics.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A Are images well-captioned? N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A
Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, relevant and important information was added. What are the strengths of the content added? Answered the questions of who, how and why the building was built. Nice addition of information. Completed the article. How can the content added be improved?
The article’s additions are all really nicely done, compared to the article before the edits, the final product tells the narrative of the building well and provides lots of information. Really great job!!!
CmacguireUW (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Christen MacGuire