User talk:Werner3840J/Cello Fury

I found this article very interesting. It was well organized and structured well. The use of numerous sources gives your work a good amount of credibility. It helps show that you really did you research and makes your page even more trustworthy. The section about the members is a nice addition because it helps give the reader a view of what and who the members are. The style flows well and the article follows Wikipedia's markup style correctly. The two things I noticed is the the Baltimore Ravens and Duquesne Unviversity were both in red. I'm thinking the reason Baltimore Ravens is in red because you have an ' before the s. Also I checked as to why the other was red and I believe it's spelled wrong, so I looked it up and it said it is spelled Duquesne. Maybe add a picture or two, to help give the reader something to visualize the band. I know Gary told us that not all articles need or will have pictures, but I think if there are images for Cello Fury that it'd add to an already well written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBoring3840J (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarity: The article itself isn't difficult to read. I definitely knew what you were saying, and was able to learn about the band with relative ease. Style and grammar: the back-and-forth between tenses can be somewhat confusing. For example: "For example, Cello Fury performs in several music and art festivals across America, such as at the New River Festival in West Virginia in August 2012." had me rereading again and again because of the mix of tenses. Wikipedia/Manual style: if something doesn't have a page trying to link to it will cause you to get flagged by the wiki staff. Likewise you may want to just proofread, Duquesne University has a wikipedia page, but the name is misspelled in the article so the page appears as broken. Accuracy: the sources are easily found, and verifiable. This article is trustworthy enough, but could use another look-over as far as organization goes. Ps3840j (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarity-The article is clear and easy to understand as well as interesting to read. style and grammar- While I didn't see any significant errors in grammar, it can be a bit confusing to read in spots, not because of the content, but due to the sentence structure and style of writing. wikipedia manual of stye-The variety of links provided is very helpful, however, several seem to be broken as they are shown in red and need fixing. accurate and trustworthy- The information seems accurate and trustworthy as the author seems knowledgeable and the numerous references add to the article's credibility. organization- The organization, particularly in the history section may need some revision. Ideas here seem a bit scattered. Maybe you could make subsections such as- accomplishments, awards or programs?? The videos are an interesting addition, i think readers would enjoy this! Jenls3840J (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)