User talk:Melanie Abbott

Melanie, we are now at the stage of starting to peer-review each others' drafts. Could you please look at and suggest possible improvements to the following two articles (and more, if you like): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ekoczi/sandbox and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jcreelman/sandbox (this one to be completed soon) Dwebsterbu (talk)

Peer Review

This is a good bulk of material. There is a good amount of important names and dates relevant to the situation. Overall, all the important information about the truth commission and what events led up to it seem to be present. The only really issue is there is that one quote where you have to scroll quite a bit sideways to view it all. Formatting and citation are the next step in this, but what is already done is concise and detailed.

Calum G Fraser (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calum. A lot of information that gives you the run down of what happen and you illustrate the events that lead to the Truth Commission. I think like most people's articles, citations and criticisms of the commission is the next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent-Jay-Matwawana (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on your work!

Hi, Melanie! I told your professor I'd give a bit of feedback on each of your sandboxes, so please see my comments below:

Prof. Webster mentioned you should incorporate this research into the existing Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Peru) article, which I think is a great idea. Don't forget to utilize the existing text and add yours into it to make expand the info! You can always reorganize the article in a way you think best, but you want to be careful not to remove any reliable references or helpful formatting.
- This also means your Article for Creation request will likely be rejected, as that is for new articles only. The reviewers probably won't have the time to incorporate your helpful additions into the existing article, so it's better for you if you go ahead and expand the existing article with your research.
Good job using some wikilinks to other articles, but you'll definitely want to add some more! The best idea is to read the article as though you are unfamiliar with the topic and add links to relevant articles when you come across something that may take a little more explanation. Hope that makes sense.
One of the most important aspects of a Wikipedia article is that they have in-line citations throughout the article. That means that any one or two sentences can be verified by a reader who scans the article and wants to check reliability. Can you try to cite all of the facts throughout the article? If someone comes along and rearranges/reorganizes the content, you want each point to still be verifiable! On that note, did you come across any additional references that you can include? That will always strengthen the article, if there are some available.

Hope this helps you some. Please don't hesitate to post on my talk page if you need any help. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This article sets out accurate information about the Truth Commission of Peru. The basic sections (introduction, history, conclusion, literature Cited, etc.) were all adequate in a well organized fashion.The subheadings were well placed to clarify the sections within the article, giving the article a easy and logical way of following upon the information on the Peru truth commission. There were plenty of citations placed throughout the article to support the information provided. After reading the article, I found that you adequately summarized the topic and discussed all the main points. For instance, all the main people involved were mentioned and the main events that happened within the truth commission. When researching information on the topic, what disagreements did you find among your sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaynaPaige (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Truth and Reconciliation Commission (December 17)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Truth and Reconciliation Commission concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]