User talk:Tcb604/sandbox

Article Evaulation

As part of the third weeks assignment, I choose to analyze the article Rearing (Horse). All elements throughout the article appear relevant to the topic horse rearing, no distractions. Overall the article appears relevantly neutral, though it more so discusses rearing as undesired and having a negative impact for humans, this negative viewpoint to rearing is overrepresented. Rearing is sometimes an action desired by specific persons such as trainers. This article has no citations, which are characteristics of an acceptable and well written article. References are not given, no facts are properly referenced which is again not proper due to lack of knowledge as to where information was obtained from and how reliable it is. Not enough information is given to know if information discussed in this article is outdated. Information is provided on cause of and solution to horse rearing, though more information could be provided on how to handle a horse that deliberately rears frequently, it fails to mention that many need specialized training and is quite generalized about this topic. On the talk page, not much has been discussed or questioned besides how high a horses legs have to be off the ground to be considered rearing. It's discussed in the talk section that as long as both are off the ground and the horse is in place it is considered rearing and how controlled rears do exist, such as the levade. The article is rated as start class on the projects quality scale and rated as low importance on the importance scale. It is part of WikiProject Equine Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class due to not as much generalized information provided.

Peer Review

Your chosen article seems to be very interesting and it is clear that you have done a lot of research. After reading your draft, I have a few suggestions:

1. Throughout your "Chosen Article" section, I thought it was great that you provided so much information regarding improvements that could be made to the existing article. After reading this article myself, I definitely agree with the points you made, however, this section could have been a little more organized. There are a few spelling and grammatical errors. Additionally, it may be beneficial to organize this into separate sections, as sometimes I found it hard to follow.

2. You clearly put a lot of thought into your draft. After reading this, as well as your references, the topic seems very interesting and you seem to understand it well. I would suggest adding headings and subheadings - this will definitely help with organizing your ideas and will be beneficial when writing your final draft. Currently, all of your ideas are compressed into one paragraph, which can be confusing for some readers. Additionally, you seem to have put a lot of information into your lead section, which is great - but, additional information was not given regarding the additional sections you mention adding.

3. After reading a few references, they seem to be relevant and credible. Great start!

Overall, this topic seems very fascinating and it is clear that you've put a lot of work into your draft. I look forward to reading your final article. Sydneymanuel (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)