User talk:RadDad199
| This user is a student editor in Lewis-Clark_State_College/American_National_Government_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, RadDad199, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Darren Romero's Peer Review of the Idaho Military Department
[edit]1. The introductory sentence is clear and concise. It doesn't necessarily lead into the article's major section very well. It gets the point across of what it is. Nothing was added by our American National Government class to the introductory sentence. Probably, because the existing sentence conveyed a clear and concise message.
2.The content added is mostly relevant and current in regards to the Idaho Military Department. There is a whole section on the Department of Homeland Security that I don't think is relevant enough to have a whole section on it. But, there may have been limited information which would deem that acceptable.The History section on the edit appears to be empty. I suggest adding some information under a section title. The rest of the added information is great and necessary.
3. All of the information is factual and neutral. Great job there! I don't believe there is any information that is unnecessary. As I already hit on, the history section could use some love. The rest of the sections are represented well. Overall the page doesn't seem biased in any way, shape, or form.
4. All sources are thorough and current. Each base website has an extensive amount of information. Any of the sites that seem less legit do still provide accurate information. Great job on finding new information as well!
5. In the lead sentence near the end, "its" should be "it's". Other than that my only recommendation would be to try and use some fancier words. Sounds funny, but that's all I've got for you! LOL
6. No pictures added.
7. Your group did a great job adding new information and determining what was relevant enough to include on this wikipedia page. Most topics had limited sources and you were able to power through that challenge. I would attempt to expand on some information in regards to the bases in Idaho and the Youth project!
Darren Romero