User talk:CBoring3840J/subpage

Clarity: This article is incredibly clear and coherent! It gives a detailed account without going overboard. Style + Grammar: Fairly well-written, no real gaping grammatical mistakes, though a little general at times. Try to be more specific, avoid using "they" at the start of sentences. Wikipedia Style: Very glad to see citations, though I'd move them around a bit and cite the monetary figures as well. When it comes to money, and income it's usually a pretty good thumb to clarify with a cited source. Barbara Eden's name is misspelled, and as such her link is broken. The timeline's broken, but there may be help. Also, Italian Alabaster statues appears to be broken. Accuracy + Trustworthiness: Unable to check the web sources, but they seem very legitimate. There's nothing misleading about the way the page was written. Organization: The timeline needs to be fixed, not sure if this will help but here's a template for Wikipedia Timelines: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Timeline Ps3840j (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarity:Article was very clear and easy to read. It provided the reader with interesting information in a clear and concise way. After reading it, I felt as if i had gained a general understanding about the theater, and wasn't confused about anything. Style and Grammar: Didn't see any big errors in grammar and the article was generally well-written throughout. It also seemed to be free of bias, which is important in this type of writing. Wikipedia Style: The links used were helpful, especially those connecting to the shows, as this could be something a reader may want to know more about. It might also be interesting to link to Akron's page, that way readers could also learn more about the town in general. Accuracy and Trustworthiness: The reader seems knowledgeable on the topic and the sources add to his credibility as a writer. Organization: The timeline is difficult to read/follow, i'm not sure if it is supposed to be seem this way, but maybe consider formatting it in a more organized set-up. The remainder of the article,however, is organized and easy to follow. Jenls3840J (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Over all the article was concise and easy to read. It seemed that all your information was accurate and clarified. I did not see any major errors in grammar or style but always double check just to be on the safe side. Good use of references. They seemed to be relevant and trustworthy. The time line section was a little hard to read. Maybe try to find a template that can help make it so its not so bunched up. Ashley3840J (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)