User talk:Marta.tkachuk/sandbox

Marta,

In alignment with the module instructions, I will be critiquing your article based on whether it has a lead section, structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliable sources or citations present in the outline.

Lead Section: I have heard of tiny houses before, seen models, and watched mini documentaries so I find it coincidental that I am reviewing this article. Having some prior knowledge on this topic, I don't believe you have a lead section. You jump right into discussing the size of the tiny home and intrinsically one can induce what it is but you have to have some sort of introduction. You probably skipped this step for the draft but definitely get on that.

Overall Structure: From the looks of your outline I could see you definitely organized your ideas. When translating this into draft form I saw that you wrote about the Size and Architecture of tiny homes however I noticed that the section about mobility was not a sub topic in and of itself. I noticed that you talked about the energy saving qualities of the tiny house but not in regards to mobility. Overall, your draft is organized and you have a good structure to communicate your ideas clearly.

Balanced Coverage: In regard to the content of your article, it has a good flow. The various sections are proportional to each other in size and they do not stretch information or stray from the overall topic. I would like to add that your section titled architecture is somewhat misleading. The content is not really about the benefits of the way it is built but rather the environmentally friendly components of the tiny home. You could say the same thing about an RV or mobile home. Be more specific or rename the section. I really like how you tied the section about homelessness into tiny homes and how they could help in resolving the issue. That was neat and also effective in showing how it can be both environmentally friendly while also reducing negative externalities that our society places on the environment.

Neutral Content: In regard to neutral content, I don't believe you are especially biased. You bring up both positive and negative elements of the tiny home. For example, by mentioning that the tiny home could be built or operated with less chemicals you reinforced a more balanced narrative/description of your topic.

Reliable Sources: As far as sources go, you have a sufficient amount that are all professional in nature. Good Job.

Overall: I like your article and how you present the tiny home as way to increase housing availability while also reducing the strain/damage placed on the environment. Be careful of the Architecture section, you wrote a lot in there. Just be sure it doesn't need to be split in half and consider renaming the section if applicable.

Kshea692 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead Section: I was going to critique the absence of a more comprehensive introduction of what tiny homes are and why people pursue them, but I assume your writing will serve to supplement a page that already has that basic information about tiny homes. If not, I suggest you add some more information. Additionally, I would stray away from the use of words like “although” and “however” because they elicit an argumentative tone when you are providing facts rather than an argument.

Overall Structure: The structure of your content is very fluid and positively contributes to the overall quality of your article, especially when you relate the issue of homelessness to tiny homes.

Balanced Coverage: The integration of the issue of homelessness also serves to balance the content presented in your article. Initially, I would deem homelessness as a completely separate issue from climate change but the information you provided made it apparent to me that homelessness and climate change are in fact related.

Neutral Content: Being new to the writing aspect of wikipedia I am not completely clear on how well I can evaluate bias, however, I would consider your article slightly biased in favor of tiny homes. However, I do not know if it’s biased enough to be not be considered as a sufficient article for wikipedia.

Reliable Sources: You have a great number of sources which most definitely bolsters the quality of your article.

Overall: Evaluate overall grammar and diction in addition to the use of passive voice as it weakens the presentation of information. Overall, I liked your article because I did not know much about tiny homes and found your insight very interesting. Nice job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonnancysw (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

Hey there Marta,

Thank you for your feedback.

I paid attention to structure because I do plan to add more content later. With that being said, the content I add later will help with balancing out the rest of my article in relation to the environmental effects portion.

As far as sources go, a majority of sources came in a pdf format which means that providing a link is not possible but I can still provide a reference or footnote. Furthermore, I have more research to conduct so that I can find positive benefits of fur farming (which do exist) to add to my article. Once content is added and there are both positive and negative elements I will focus on making the tone more neutral. Specifically, I will pay attention to the last section where my tone adopts a slightly oppositional tone.

Overall, I will make sure to make the content proportionally balanced throughout the article while adopting a neutral tone. In addition, I will look for another source as well as information regarding the positive benefits of fur farming.

Kshea692 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Feedback

Hello Marta,

Thank you for the feedback! You commented a lot about the sources I use and I tried to contribute proven ideas/thoughts instead of my own. Thank you for suggesting to improve my balance coverage, I am currently working on making the environment impacts section about half of my page. NaoBao (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)