User talk:Grace Elliott/sandbox

1.This proposed article does a really good job at remaining neutral. There is no language that I really found as pushing for one view or another and I think that there are not many substantive changes that need to be made. I found the sources to be reliable and the structure/organization to make sense. 2. One part that I was unsure about was in relation to her birth date. I think a source for the sentence stating about knowing she was born in the 60s would be beneficial in order to support the claim that this is public knowledge. I think that the only other changes I would make would be in adding more sources to back up the information provided. 3.Adding more sources would be the most important thing that I would recommend. I think providing citations for more of the sentences that are provided would help Wikipedia in verifying the information so that it will be accepted into the actual article. It also provides readers with the ability to see where each sentence (or the majority) came from. 4.I think that I could really learn from the way you made sure to present the information in a neutral way in order to better my own article. Overall, good job and keep adding! Dgenners (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you have a really strong lead that introduces this person very well, and although you're missing some information because it just isn't there, you give context so it can fill those gaps. I think the lead does a good job of putting her life on a timeline that I can follow, so I can know what allows her to think or be the person she is. I do think however, for early life, it may be a little too broad? I think that you could do that a little better by separating her younger life as child, teenager, adult? I just think that early life is a little too broad and it could mislead when you just group a lot of actions in early life. Hope I make sense. I do think there is a lot of room to make an argument to support and praise her but there is a more neutral tone carried throughout the paragraphs. I think there is clear evidence though, that you organized the entire article well based on what you have so far. I think each category is very specific and I followed it very well. Maybe you could add a couple more sources to each area, I think it looks good but if you pull from sources that may be more contemporary, that can change the way you also speak about her. Like I've said, you keep a very neutral point of view, and I feel like I am actually reading an encyclopedic article of Morano. Based on what is shown, I think you are doing a good job, and you could really push this to be a more prominent article with great sources! Collegekid2020 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)