User talk:Becca.j521/sandbox

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Emily.walton1 in topic peer review

Your lead does a good job at giving a synopsis of what the article is going to talk about. It isn't too information heavy, as I believe you're going to put the bulk of the information on the rest of the article. It tells what the subject is, origin, and how it is/stays relevant in mainstream media. There are a few spelling errors, though. Make sure to go back and check those.

1. I really like how you expanded on how Awkward Family Photos was started in your "Origin" section. It really explains how the website came to be and how it became popular. The "Books and Games" section really expands upon the popularity of the Awkward Family Photos. You also had a lot of good citations. 2. If I were to change anything, I might reorganize the way the "Books and Games" section is written. It was a little hard to tell apart all the books and games created by this franchise. Also, is there anymore information about the website that could be added to this article? 3. The most important thing would be to add more to the article if possible. I totally understand if there isn't much more on the subject though. 4. I thought the structure of your article was very well organized. Looking at my own article, I definitely need to model mine after yours. It is very clean looking and mine is NOT very clean looking at the moment. I also really liked your lead section. Alexandr.borchard (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

peer review

edit

First, I think your article is set up well; it is clear and organized. I am slightly confused by your lead sentence where you say "...a website in 2009 hat glorified...", specifically about the "hat glorified". I'm not sure what this means, or maybe it was a typo. Some changes I would make would be to not repeat information unless it's absolutely necessary, such as the relationship between Bender and Chernack which you mention a few times. I think the most important thing to improve your article is to add more to it. What you have is good, but I would add more. You have a great start to your article. Emily.walton1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply