User talk:Tmschach

thanks for reaching out, t. tomorrow in class we will talk more about wikipedia! ekh 22:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilykayhanks (talk • contribs)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tmschach! Thank you for your contributions. I am Wgolf and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Wgolf (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Toni, My name is Colleen and I am also in Dr. Hanks Tues/Thurs class. I look forward to learning more about the editing process of Wiki. C0l1E3N93 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation - Whurley

I have evaluated an article written by a local entrepreneur - William Hurley (Whurley) From looking at the article's talk page I found out that it had been written for promotional purposes. This article is a bit vague in some spots, for example it talks about Whurley's "many" awards received but goes on to only list a few at the very bottom of the page. Additionally, the article describes 11 patents that he has been awarded but offers no proof and no list of the patents. There are some portions of the article that are very wordy with run-on sentences that are difficult to follow. Overall, the article doesn't show much bias which is a credit to the original author, but it could certainly be more detailed. Tmschach (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing myself

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Peer Review: The lead paragraph is helpful in describing what exactly the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was. It was interesting to know that it was partly in response to the Watergate scandal. It was also interesting to know how the U.S. Civil Service Commission was abolished and instead the three new agencies created. I’m not exactly sure what the key points of the article will be, but I also think that if the key points were to be pointed out then the paragraph wouldn’t have flowed as well. Definitely a sufficient amount of information on the topic! The topic is clear and the scholarly support is present. Definitely a variety of sources and was professional in providing their points of view in an appropriate manner. The claims are sufficiently supported with evidence that is reliable and scholarly. There are also plenty of sources. The article is very neutral in providing the viewpoints of several opinions and they are all followed by their sources. Very well balanced. The article is very well organized and structured which is very impressive and makes it appear more professional. I'm a little confused by the review form in which it asks if the article titles are capitalized in the first letter of the first word, but not capitalized in the first letter of the proceeding words. I'd ask her which it should be, so far you have the article titles capitalized at each word. Really I'm just confused on her format section of the form in general so I don't know how to do this part, but I think everything looks perfect the way it is. There aren't any pictures though. I'm not sure exactly what you guys are adding to the article and what was previously there, but I like that this has a lot of factual history to it. It's not just "this is this guys opinion and this is that guys opinion." There was history behind it and it was interesting as well. Two things I would change would be to add a picture, maybe there's one on the original Wiki page, if so, ignore that. The other thing would be to maybe break up some of the paragraphs, they're lengthy at points. It's not crucial though, that would just be if I HAD to change something.--Tmmurphy93 (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]