User talk:Engl101Pina
1) Did your partner follow the format guidelines for a Wikipedia article (contains a lead and a reference list, the right things are bolded, section headings are correct, etc.)? If not, what needs to be altered to make it look like a Wikipedia article?
Correct format
2) Is the article well-written? (“its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard”) Select one sentence that you consider to be well-written. Also select at least one sentence where the writing could be clarified or polished up to make the article more interesting and informative.
Fairly well written. A few small mistakes that revising would fix.
3) Is the article comprehensive? (“it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context”) List one section of the article you find to be very comprehensive. Also list one section of the article that needs to be expanded or contextualized better to make the article more complete and persuasive.
Sections are comprehensive and easily understood
4) Is the article well-researched? (“it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature”) If the sources listed are from websites, follow the links. List each website and include whether you find it to be credible or not.
Only have 2 sources for the entire article.
5) Is the article neutral? (“it presents views fairly and without bias”) Does it fulfill the Wikipedia ideal of Neutral Point of View (NPOV)? Include any sentences that appear to be biased.
Sentences are pretty unbiased. Maybe take our some words that you used to describe a character that another person would not use to describe that same character.
6) Is the article of the correct length? (“It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail”) Does it meet the minimum length requirement for the class of 2 pages of text double spaced?
Correct length. Maybe add one more section.
Hello, Engl101Pina, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!
I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Diamond Revelation by sheila copeland, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - save the page
It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! reddogsix (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)