User talk:LyssBlyss
| This user is a student editor in College_of_Staten_Island/History_of_Design_and_Digital_Media_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, LyssBlyss, 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) 15:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Dec 1 check in
[edit]This is good progress. Next step is to peer review one of your classmate’s articles. Like your own, these will be on their sandbox pages. You should be able to see who is assigned each article on the Assigned Articles tab, so click on their username to find their sandbox. Remember, you had a training on this, which you can rely on. Feel free to email me if you have questions. --Theredproject (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (LyssBlyss) Link to draft you're reviewing: Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -Yes, the lead has been updated. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -Yes, it does. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -No, it doesn’t. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -Yes, it does. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -The lead is concise and clearly stated. Lead evaluation -The lead for programmer, Dona Bailey is a great introduction to what I will learn about her. Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? -The content is relevant to the topic. Is the content added up-to-date? -The content is up-to-date, I skimmed through the References. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -I would have liked to see more back history of Dona Bailey, more detail on her accomplishments in the video game world. Content evaluation -Overall, an informative article on Dona Bailey that is clear and easy to read. Maybe another section or two. Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral? -The content is neutral based as it hits all the major points of her professional career. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -No, there’s no claims that appear to be heavily biased. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -There viewpoints are clearly represented, would just like to see more viewpoints from other angles. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -No, it doesn’t do that. Tone and balance evaluation -Overall, the article has a neutral tone and is evenly distributed for the content provided. Sources and References
Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -Yes, the article has reliable sources. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -Yes, they are informative sources. Are the sources current? -Yes, all of the sources are within the last 5-6 years Check a few links. Do they work? -Yes, the links are fully operating. Sources and references evaluation -The sources provided for this article are informative and reliable. Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -Content is very easy to read and understand. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -I didn’t see any grammatical and spelling errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -Yes, very well organized. Organization evaluation
-This article on Dona Bailey is concise, clear and neutral. It hits all the information we would want to know based on the lead. Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? -The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. The article now seems to be more informative compared to the original. There’s information that’s there now that gives us a more clear understanding of who Dona Bailey is. What are the strengths of the content added? -The strengths of the content added is that I know more back history of her time spent at Atari and her contributions to the company. Another strength is that you stated her more current work after her hiatus to help with family. How can the content added be improved? -The content could have another section or two so that I could learn more of Dona Bailey. Maybe a section on her passion for programming, teaching and in what ways she utilizes her College degrees. Overall evaluation -Overall, compared to the original article and information provided, I think this article works well. It hits the main points of Dona Bailey’s timeline of careers. Again, informative and concise, I would just want to maybe read up on a little more information on her, if accessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivrantfran88 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Clarification on one sentence
[edit]I read this sentence "In 2008, Bailey taught as a faculty member in the department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock" and was unsure if what you meant was that "In 2008, Bailey joined the faculty in the department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock" and you might finish the sentence with "where she taught until her retirement in 20XX" or "where she continues to teach." --Theredproject (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)