Brettfriedman99

This Wikipedia group’s page edit, in all, was very well done. While I did see more cons then pros while referring to the “Evaluating Wikipedia” article. Some of the pros of this article are the amount of footnotes (18) for how relatively sized the article actually is. Another positive is the face that the talk page is not a hostile environment, and it is all constructive criticism that allowed the group to make their article better. A final positive note I will say about this article is that the structure is very clear and all the subcategories under the “points of discussion” section are all very well balanced. While the group edits were well done, I did notice some things they might’ve done better at. First off, the quote in the lead section is a good quote, but the length of the quote is just as long as the rest of the lead section. This long length of a quote in the lead section will turn readers off. While the group did have a healthy amount of footnotes, in some of their sections there are only one footnote which is not substantial enough evidence for an entire subsection. A final problem I noticed was in the lengthy “criticism” section. This section looks as it is over a third of all the other sections combined, and this can turn readers off because they may believe the group is biased. Brettfriedman99 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)