User talk:Sunnysideup373/articledraft

Article draft feedback

Hi @Sunnysideup373:, I'm happy to see the great work you've done on your article. You've really flushed out a couple of sections, and you're planning to add even more content. The others left you some really awesome feedback already! This seems like a really great choice for an article. I'm happy to give you more feedback when you're further along, just <verbatim>{ping | Groceryheist}</verbatim> at me

I encourage you to polish your article a bit, with a focus on writing style and clarity. I don't see any particular problems there, its just something that can always be improved. Finally, I think it would be great to add some more Wikilinks to your article. Wikilinks can be a good way to help other editors discover your article. After you publish your article, you might also consider linking to your article from other relevant articles. You should also add your article to any relevant categories. Groceryheist (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Jasmair's Peer Review

Hey, just wanted to start off by saying that I liked how you added content throughout the article rather than just focusing on one section. To make this an easier structure as a peer review to follow, I'm going to give you feedback of things that worked well and things that could be done better section by section rather than giving you just positives and then things to improve. There is a lot of feedback that I provide, so if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page, ping me, or catch me before or after class.

Background: I liked how you started off by mentioning that this was a battle fought in WWI. I noticed that in the original article, no where did it mention that this was WWI, but it did mention when it was fought. So, someone who might have stumbled upon this article would have had to known the time frame of WWI to infer that it was a battle fought during that. I also liked how you mentioned there were two previous battles. I would recommend that you link the Wikipedia pages of those two battles into the text when you first mention them and removing it from the next paragraph that they are mentioned in (I just checked and both of the links in the next paragraph of battles of Isonzo are in Wikipedia and do work). As for the bullet point you added, I would combine it into the previous paragraph and make it the last sentence. Start it off with "More specifically" and have the remaining bullet point in there. So, it should look something like this "...firepower in certain areas. More specifically, the two objectives..."

Location: Again, a great section to add since the battle is named after the river. I would recommend getting rid of the bullet points and making it one paragraph. That way, the bullet points are also sentences rather than incomplete sentences in bullets. As for the third bullet point, I liked how you added why it wasn't a great location for an attack but also why it was chosen. It adds neutrality to your bullet point since you mention both sides. For that bullet point, a small detail to make it so it isn't confused as an opinion is changing the structure of the sentence. It's easier to show you my edit on this rather than trying to explain it, so here is the edit I am recommending that makes it sound more neutral. "Since it had mountainous terrain on both sides, as well as frequently flooded banks, this was not a great location for an attack. However..." By leading with the reasons rather than the statement of it not being a great location, you are making it sound like it is not an opinion.

Battle: Again, the content that you are adding I think is important to the battle, so all of that new information should be kept in there. The changes I would recommend are, again, take away the bullet points and make them complete sentences. Also, take a look at your third bullet point, the structure of the sentence is a little off and I was confused on what you were trying to say. There might have been a missed period in there somewhere.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Side: This section is blank. You could add a new section to it but I think it would be fine without it too. You've already contributed a lot to this article and I'm not sure if it is feasible for you to do this section in time for the assignment, so maybe after the assignment, if you feel like you want to, go back and add this section.

Criticism of Luigi Cadorna: This section definitely has weight against Luigi Cadorna. Rather than doing just criticisms, maybe think about adding strengths and weaknesses. Also, I think some of the bullets are on the fence of being opinions rather than facts. For example, saying poor leadership skills is a big claim and there isn't really a source to back it up. If there is a source to do so, check if they actually had a system that assessed his leadership skills. If not, I feel like it is more of an opinion because to some people, he might have had good leadership skills and to others, they might think he doesn't. Also, you might want to consider not even having this section. I say this because I noticed that there is a Wikipedia page on him, and this section might be better suited for that page rather than this page.

Aftermath: I like this section because it gives a bit more information about the remaining battles without going into too much detail (and leaving the details up to the other Wikipedia pages to fill in). The only recommendation I have is linking the other battles to your text, so if someone wants to continue reading, they can click on "Fourth Battle of Isonzo" and it will redirect them to that page.

Jasmair (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation by NJ

A lead section that is easy to understand A clear structure Balanced coverage Neutral content Reliable sources

The lead of this was already well fleshed out and neutral but I appreciate your attention to detail to update when the battle ended.

As for your structure, I liked seeing the addition of "Location", "Strengths and Weaknesses of Each side", "Criticism" and "Aftermath." These were very nice touches and improvements to the original wiki page. As we know, each battle can be expanded upon than just trivial information. Also, it was nice to see that you improved and provided more context to the existing subsections to further add depth to the information about this battle.

By adding the strength and weaknesses section you will achieve a better balance with the article. For that section I recommend you break it down to something easily digestible like a table or more headings in this section so that it is more organized and break up the heavy word loaded wiki. This could also help students in the future who are analyzing the article.

Your sources you added were also reliable, one coming from the encyclopedia. You could also expand on what you have written by reinforcing your claims such as those critiques from Luigi Cadorna. By putting reliable sources to show why he thinks this way it would make his arguments more valid and fact-based so that the reader can further debate on whether to agree or disagree with his criticism.

Overall though, this was nicely done and expanded a great deal on the existing material. Good job and I'm excited to see the final product. Nignaco (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)