User talk:IJslayer/sandbox

Peer Review from Joeybo (Joe)

I saw the first draft and it seems most of it is based on one article. You do have several other sources listed that may be useful in finding other sources. For example, one source enabled me to read about how the old Challenger newspapers were piling up in a moldy room, till someone from USF decided to preserve them digitally. Maybe that could be a section for your Wikipedia article to show the historical importance of the Challenger through the efforts of USF to preserve past issues of the paper. There is also a great timeline that could be a section of your Wikipedia article too.Joeybo (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Nevans Locke Peer Review

You have a good framework to continue to develop this page. Your history section is clearly well researched and detailed. However, your introduction to the Weekly Challenger does not reflect the content (history) you have below. Specifically, you acknowledge the “huge impact” they have on the community, but don’t provide citations for this claim. Later in the introduction, you say “many people feel this news is more interesting,” but don’t cite who the people are. I would either restructure and rephrase your introduction to the article, or provide more relevant content and citations. Overall this has great, detailed information to build a page on! - Jrnevans2018 11/5/18

Peer Review, Emily Miner, 11/5/18

What does the article do well? Is there anything from the review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I really enjoyed the way you described the history of the paper. This section is probably the most important to your article and it was clear and concise.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Citations need to be added to your article, along with a reference section. I would also recommend having more sections to your article, such as an "impact" section, about how the newspaper has affected the community of St. Petersburg. I also see one of your references is the weekly challenger newspaper website. While this is a good starting point to find information, per Wikipedia source guidelines, I don't think you can use it as a source because it is considered biased.

What is the most important thing the author could do to improve the article or draft? I think added the resources section and citations is the most important change.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The sections are very similar to my article (The Woodson Museum). As I said, I really liked how you worded your history section. I think my article could definitely benefit from some editing in its own history section.

Emmyminer (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review, Amanda Freda, 11/5/18

What does the article do well? Is there anything from the review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
The history section of this article is probably one of the most important parts, and from reading I can tell that is is detailed and very well written.
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
The content of the article draft is great so far, so the only improvement I would suggest is adding citations. Having citations and a list of references at the end is crucial for any good article.
What is the most important thing the author could do to improve the article or draft?
The most important thing the author could do to improve this article is to add in-text citations and a reference section.
Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
After reading this article, I think that it would be beneficial for me to try to expand in more detail on the history section. This one is clear and detailed, which is key for any strong article.
Amandafreda (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]