User talk:Guyarv/sandbox/Lucca

Evaluations

1/30/2018 Evaluation by User:Kristinnmason

I went through all the criteria and would give you an A if I was calculating a grade. I have only good things to say about your page as far as the coding/sources/citations, etc. I like how you added the two titles to the bottom for further information however it does look incomplete as far as visual editing so I would leave those out until you have more information. That leaves the perfect place for continued editing. When I compare your edit to the original post it looks much more fluid. Overall great job, I can't wait to read more from you!

2/01/2018 Evaluation by User:avictory

Spelling/Grammar

Exceeds Standard (No problems as far as I can see.)

Language

Exceeds Standard (Well-written and encyclopedic in tone.)

Organization

Exceeds Standard (Organization is great and the flow is perfect.)

Coding

Meets Standard (Reference/Footnote 2 has a code error, otherwise, great.)

Validity

Exceeds Standard (Everything seems legitimate.)

Completion

Exceeds Standard (Obviously not complete, but ideas are developed and information is elaborated on. Everything stated is explained in-depth.)

Relevance

Exceeds Standard (Everything seems to be quite relevant. The only thing that is possibly irrelevant/speculative is the portion on Dante; maybe you could find another source to corroborate?).

Sources

Exceeds Standard (Looks great!)

Citations

Exceeds Standard (The only problem is that most of the citations have been inserted before the punctuation.)

References

Exceeds Standard (Formatting looks good but reference 5 has pg. instead of just p.)

This probably wasn't particularly helpful to you, but kudos on near-perfection and being so far ahead.