Nikki sato

Welcome!

Hello, Nikki sato, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Evaluations

1/30/2018 Evaluation by Ctardif5

• Points: 36.5/40
• Grade: 91.25%

Spelling/Grammar

Does Not Meet Standard No significant spelling errors are present, but many grammar errors are present and in need of revision. The first sentence should be reviewed and updated, specifically from "but was interesting" to "an Etruscan one". In the next sentence"their"should be "its","artistic" should be "art". Many more grammatical and syntax deficiencies exist that should be changed prior to publication, but I do not want to point them all out to you and deprive you of the learning opportunity!

Language

Nearly Meets Standard There are no first or second person pronouns exist, but there is some presumably unintentional bias that needs to be neutralized. For example, "interesting" in the first sentence indicates a personal feeling or experience related to the content, and is not fully neutral. "Importance of" should also be removed from the second sentence, as it assigns value/judgment to factual information, which is not appropriate or necessary for Wikipedia.

Organization

Meets Standard

Coding

Exceeds Standard

Validity

Nearly Meets Standard There is no invalid or false information, but multiple sentences are incomplete and not concise. Review the last 3-4 sentences, as they indicate ideas about historical Florence, but do not actually provide data or factual information.

Completion

Exceeds Standard

Relevance

Meets Standard Most of the information is relevant, but the paragraphs relevance could be improved with the inclusion of more factual information (dates, specific events, etc.).

Sources

Exceeds Standard

Citations

Nearly Meets Standard Although plenty of citations are present, some of them are poorly used, due to there being limited information in the associated sentence. It seems as though some of these references are intended to guide a viewer to pertinent information, when that information should instead be included in the Wikipedia page, with the citation simply serving to guide a viewer to the source of that information, should they want to verify its validity/credibility.

References

Meets Standard I would have graded this "Exceeds Standard", but sources 3 and 7 do not identify the name of the article or journal that they came from. They link to an EBSCOHost login page. Many viewers of the page may not have access or login information, so the titles of the specific documents that the information was taken from should be used as the titles in the references section. Please let me know if you have any questions or need assistance with this.

Good job overall. Some minor edits and additional content will put this into great shape! Ctardif5 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick Notes

Hi Nikki,

Since I happened to glance over this, I put in some code on your sandbox page to separate the references to your article evaluation from references for the First Edit assignment material. That way the grader doesn't think that you're citing Wikipedia to support the edits which are supposed to be in Wikipedia (would be redundant). When referring to Wikipedia, it's best to use hyperlinks, rather than citations. Hyperlinks do not suffice as actual citations on which to ground your statements, however. (I once also had some edits rejected on those grounds.)

Also, referencing Encyclopedia Britannica is something you really should avoid. I should maybe have made it explicit that sources like Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica are tertiary sources, and your articles should use primary and secondary sources, with a very strong preference for peer-reviewed academic journals, which are secondary sources.

Above, Ctardif5 has some very good suggestions for you, and is grading you a lot nicer than the grader will be doing. Make sure you address those things.

Best!

DrMichaelWright (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

2/27/2018 Evaluation by Ctardif5

• Points: 39.5/40
• Grade: 98.75%

Spelling/Grammar

Nearly Meets Standard Spelling is mostly in good shape, and the primary issue I found is where Shakespeare was misspelled. Grammar could be improved. I would encourage you to read over the edit and consider where commas could be added or word choice modified to make the edit flow better. For instance, the last sentence of the first paragraph should have a comma after "As mentioned" and "tragic" should instead be "tragedy".

Language

Meets Standard No major issues but reading through and improving the language to be more concise may lead you to a higher grade with the instructor.

Organization

Meets Standard I would look at the formatting of the festival section to make it stand out better. Perhaps change/shorten the title or make it bold like a sub-header.

Coding

Meets Standard No issues identified.

Validity

Meets Standard No incorrect information appears to be present, but it does seem that more details could be added so that ideas are based in fact. For example, including the amount of annual visits to Juliet's house or something of this nature would improve the validity of your edit.

Completion

Meets Standard I would encourage you to include some content to serve as a preface to the festival section.

Relevance

Exceeds Standard All content seems very relevant.

Sources

Meets Standard No issues identified.

Citations

Meets Standard It appears that you have added the same source twice in your reference list. Number 10 and 11 appear to be the same source.

References

Meets Standard No issues identified.

Ctardif5 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

2/27/2018 Evaluation by Jaridgway

• Points: 39.5/40
• Grade: 98.7%

Spelling/Grammar

Nearly Meets Standard Spelling is mostly correct. Check spelling and spacing between words/punctuation.

Language

Nearly Meets Standard No large issues, I would go back through and smooth over the language that sounds a little choppy.

Organization

Meets Standard Perhaps add an image

Coding

Meets Standard No issues.

Validity

Meets Standard You could add more detail to paint a better picture of festivals etc.

Completion

Meets Standard I would add more details.

Relevance

Exceeds Standard Seems relevant.

Sources

Meets Standard No issues

Citations

Meets Standard Add one or two others from different sites.

References

Meets Standard No issues.

talk) 11:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation - Brescia Economy

• Points: 42/40
• Grade: 105%

Spelling/Grammar

Meets Standard Spelling looks good.

Language

Meets Standard

Organization

Exceeds Standard Well done, relevant information.

Coding

Meets Standard No issues

Validity

Meets Standard You could add more detail to paint a better picture of festivals etc.

Completion

Exceeds Standard Well done

Relevance

Exceeds Standard Seems relevant.

Sources

Exceeds Standard looks good! lots of sources!

Citations

Meets Standard Looks good

References

Meets Standard No issues. miar 06:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)