User talk:Nickapplewhite/sandbox
The following are questions, responses provided for completion of the Peer-review process. 1. Which article are you reviewing? I am reviewing the "United States Secretary of Education" article, and its edits made by Nick Applewhite.
2. Does the lead section summarize the article's key points? What are the key points of the article as you understand them? The lead section does in fact summarize the article's key points. A clear break-down of the US Secretary of Educations' office purpose, and responsibilities is understood to be the key points of the article.
3. Is the articles structure clear? Does the group use the/plan to use headings and subheading, images, and diagrams at appropriate places? The structure of this article is clear. Headings are used properly. Even so far as the break down of acronyms is properly laid out for the reader.
4. How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements give equal treatment? Are sections overly long, or short in proportion to their importance? Balanced isn't a word I would used to describe this article. However, detailed certainly is an accurate description. Attention is has been paid to the inner workings of this Office. Furthermore, the details provided allowed this reader to acquire a greater appreciation for the Office, as well as the work put in to organize it here on Wikipedia. The length of the article is necessary. I cannot assert that is is "too long" at all. Accounts of an Office of the United States should be detailed, and in detailing it the amount of words used shouldn't matter.
5. Is the language appropriate? Do the authors use generalized language such as "some," or "many? Could these references be replace with fact? The word "many" is only used 3 times, "some" doesn't appear at all, and the uses of the aforesaid term "many" is quite appropriate. Representing information accurately is the perceived goal, and appears to have been accomplished.
6. Does this article contain unsourced opinions or value statements? No, this article does not contain unsourced opinions or value statements.
7. How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why? Both "proper" and "reliable" are terms that describe the references used in this article. Proper, in that information is sourced from credible sources. Reliable in that I have first hand experience of their reliability.
8. Based on both the progress report and the article's current appearance to what it looked like when the group began working on it, how would you rate the progress made so far? Given what the appearance of the "live" version of the article is compared to the Sandbox a 5 (best of 5- 1 lowest, 5 highest) must be given. The information in the Sandbox will certainly enhance the articles ability to inform the public.
9. What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I cannot assert that I "like", or "dislike" any particular thing. I am looking at the article as an objective person; only looking to see if assignment requirements have been met.
10. What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group's presentation? I am not aware of what other presentation-devices are going to be used by other group members other than the author of this particular Sandbox. Still, if I am to offer two suggestions for the group, then these would be the suggestions: 1. the use of graphics to separate each section may help to "liven" the page up. 2. Perhaps an even broader look at the office, and its power might be a good thing to explore.
11. How would you such improvements contribute to the article's quality? Suggestion 1 (from question 10's answer)-having graphics may help to lessen the likeliness of a "drab appearance" for some readers. PLEASE NOTE: NOT AN ISSUE OF MINE Suggestion 2 (from question 10's answer)- the increased exploration of the Office's power may promote thought, and more curiosity to the reader. Leading to better self-education, and maybe future edits.
12. Do you have any additional comments or suggestion for the author? No additional comments or suggestions will be offered at this time. Loneoso (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)