FrankyASF

Feedback on your article

Hello FrankyASF, Thank you for writing your article in your sandbox! I have read the article and would like to give some feedback to improve your article to Wikipedia standards and customs. While your tutor will judge it content wise, I will look if it meets the quality standards we have on Wikipedia. I standard look for a series of subjects that may need improvement.

• Intro sentence: good
• Links: You made a good start, but a few more keywords need to be linked. Think for example about "English", "Physician" (without capital), please go through your article for it.
• Headers: I am happy with the structure of the article. However in the section Content has too many. Please remove the headers and make it a bullet list. Also: less capitals please: "Historical Context" does not need to have a capital C, etc. Usually we only make the first character of a header capitalised, unless it is a given name.
• Context/timeframe: I think this section can be longer, and with sources added.
• How was the book received: If you can find more info on how it was received it is welcome.
• References: Please use inline references: references you add behind the dot of a sentence. For every paragraph you need to add at least one inline reference. Also every 2 or 3 sentences need a reference. This should also result in that you have more sources added.
• Ready to publish: No. References are besides good writing the most important part of Wikipedia articles. Without inline references, an article is not ready to be published.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before our coming meeting. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Today a new review:

• Intro sentence: good
• Links: a little bit too much linked now: it is only necessary to link a certain keyword only once in your article.
• Headers: good
• Context/timeframe: Are there really no other sources to be found for this section?
• How was the book received: If possible please add references to other publication than the book itself.
• References: besides mentioned ^^ it is sufficient.

Thanks! Romaine (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)