User talk:Jay58384
Peer Review (Samarth)
[edit]What does the article do well?
- Provides a rich history of the golf course, including key dates, events, and architectural details.
- Describes each hole with particular attention to their unique challenges and characteristics.
What changes would you suggest overall?
- Integrate more citations from reputable sources to validate historical and architectural claims.
- Add more internal links to related Wikipedia pages and external links to official resources.
- Include visual aids such as maps or images of the golf course and its facilities to enhance understanding.
What is the most important thing the author could do to improve their contribution?
- Focus on referencing all major points to enhance the article's credibility.
Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own?
- The use of detailed descriptions and the historical context provided are excellent examples of how to make an article both informative and engaging.
Sammyboy1012 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Brendan Peer Review
[edit]Pros: The structure of the article is perfect. I also think that youre intro statement brings up the article perfectly. I also liked how you described the most notable holes.
Criticisms:
Structure:
Make sure you add a title.
Make sure everything is written in full sentences.
Make sure you have citations.
You may want to add in some images of the golf course.
Individual Sections:
For the front nine paragraphs list hole 1,3, and 7 and then describe each of them with a full sentence.
For back nine as opposed to “Hole 17: text” just include hole 17 in the sentence.
Just an idea for facilities, but you could also talk about Caddy’s and/or golf carts. DonHoulio (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jay58384 (August 12)
[edit]