User talk:AndrewC13/sandbox

Andrew, don't forget to cite your sources for the budget and cost information that you added to the draft! Anjames342 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Gracia's peer review

Wikipedia Peer Review

Lead Section:

1. Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic? a. The lead section includes an introductory sentence that both concisely and clearly describes the topic. In comparison to the original article, the over all description is easy to read can gather information from 2. Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major section? a. The lead does include a brief description of the topic in very clear detail. 3. Has the lead been updated to reflect new content added by the group? a. Because the original article had a very bias tone, it appears the group has completely reworked the lead. It was given a neutral tone while still providing needed information in order to allow the reader the understanding of what is going on. 4. Is the lead concise or overly detailed? a. The lead is very concise. The group got rid of the details that were bias or not needed. This made the article easy to read.

Content:

1. Is the content added relevant to the topic? a. The content that was added was relevant. Each section is organized well and flows into each other. They provide both short and long titles as well as the full text. 2. Is the content added up-to-date? a. The content does seem up to date. Its hard to tell if something if accurate especially after the first three sections since there isn’t any information to compare it with. 3. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? a. After the lead there definitely are section that could use information. For instance how did the campaigning and petitioning start for the proposition and how did they gained support. The opposition and support section has a note that is probably for the group but I agree with that note. *there are more than one* the group has a section for current status with no information. I would recommend adding that information as it is important to know.

Tone and Balance:

1. Is the content added neutral? a. The content added is very neutral. The previous content had a clear sense of bias. The group complete reworked the article so it had a neutral tone. 2. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? a. not in how the text is worded. However, there is a lot of information about who supported with not a lot of info of who opposed and why. What part were opposed? 3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? a. I would say that the group gives a lot of examples of support with only one for the opposition. Were there others who opposed this bill or was it just that group? Why did they oppose it? Sources and References: 1. Is all the new content backed up by a reliable source? a. No, the group has provided a lot of places where they could add a reference but hasn’t actually provided a source. For instance, where did you get the information for the supporters? The alteration and budget information is not sourced. 2. Are the sources through? a. The one that are there are through yes 3. Are the sources current? a. Yes 4. Do they work? a. Yes

Organization:

1. Is the content added well-written i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read? a. The content added was very clear. there were places that I talked about in the content sections that need more information. What was written was very well done. 2. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? a. No, the content that was added showed the group had proofread their material. 3. Is the content added well-organized? a. Yes, as previously stated I was impressed with the amount of organization that the group took the time to complete their article. Each section that was added reflected the major points of the topic.

Images and Media:

1. Does the image enhance understanding of the topic? a. Yes, there was only one image but it showed the expansion of Medicaid over the U.S. 2. Are the images well captioned? a. Yes 3. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? a. Yes

Overall Impressions

1. Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? a. Yes, the group provided a lot of new information that the previous article was lacking. 2. What were the strengths of the content added? a. The information was neutral. The reader didn’t feel attacked by a bias writer. The content was incredibly organized and presented in a way that anyone who read it could understand it. Overall very well done. 3. How can the article be improved? a. Definitely add more sources to the content (budget and funding and alteration) or in the case of the supporter and opposition make the source more evident. There are a couple places that information could be added. Examples include: current status, why did some group oppose the bill, more info on supporter and opposition, implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjpoint (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nathaniel's Peer Review

1. Lead Section Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic? - yes, it gives a clear idea of what it is and the sub topics coming up in the rest of the article Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major section? - yes it does, and it's pretty clear. Has the lead been updated to reflect new content added by the group? - Yes it has. They made the new lead more clearer than the regular article. Is the lead concise or overly detailed? - Like in the question before, they changed a lot and made it clearer so yes it is very concise

2. Content Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes, all content added was relevant to topic Is the content added up-to-date? - fairly up to date, most content from November of 2018 so pretty well up to date Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - in the campaigning and petitioning section, they could've mentioned some bigger organizations that didn't agree with prop two, but since there was such a big number that didn't I could see why they didn't.

3. Tone and balance Is the content added neutral? - yes, they did a good job of this throughout the article Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - there is a little bit but not too much in the article Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? - They're all pretty well represented but the opposing side could use a little more.

4. Sources and references Is all the new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - yes, all sources that they had for the article were good and thorough Are the sources current? - yes, I tried out one and its up to date

5. Organization Is the content added well-written i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Oh ya, very well writen and they made it easier for me to understand, unlike the original article Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - not that I saw Is the content added well-organized i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes, it's definitely why their article is easier to read because they organized it better.

6. Media and Images Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - yes the map of the overview of Medicade was a helpful image Are the images well-captioned? - very well captioned Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - yes all well placed throughout the article

7: Overall Impression Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article i.e. is the article more complete? - yes, they made it twice as better because of the organization and well written content What are the strengths of the content added? - most definitely the organization of the article and how they sectioned it How can the content be improved? - add more to the opposition side of things

Gunnar's Peer Review

The lead in this wikipedia assignment includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. The lead also includes a brief description of the article’s major section. It gives clear information about Idaho Proposition 2 and gives background information about what it’s about. The lead has been updated to reflect new content added by the group. I would say the lead is very concise with good, clear information about the topic.

The content added to this topic is relevant. They give information about campaigning and petitioning and give certain statistics about voting. The content added is up-to-date. I wouldn’t say that there is any content that is missing from this topic and I don’t think that there’s any content that doesn’t belong.

The content added in this wikipedia article are very neutral. They do a good job of not stating one stance on their topic and keeping the whole article fair and neutral. I can’t find any claims that appear to be biased in any way toward a particular position. I couldn’t find any viewpoints throughout the entire article that appear to be overrepresented or underrepresented.

All the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough and current. The links do work and bring me to a website.

The content throughout the entire wikipedia article is very well written. They did a great job of adding the necessary information that was needed and it was very clear and easy to read. I couldn’t find any grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well organized into different sections and it’s easy to follow and not get lost.

The article does include images that relate to the topic. The images are well captioned with descriptions. They look very professional and are appealing to the eye.

I think that the content that has been added to this topic has improved the quality of this article overall. I think the strength of the content that has been added is they gave background information about what the 2018 Idaho Proposition 2 was about and it was also easy to understand and read. I also think they did a great job of making it look professional and adding images that relate to the topic. One thing that I think that can be improved to make the content that much better is adding just a little bit more information of what the 2018 Idaho Proposition 2 is. I feel like that part could be filled with just a little more facts and background information.

74.118.22.224 (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Gunnar Harlan