User talk:Marilyn Narloch/sandbox

Rhet Class Peer Review

Lead: The first sentence defines the subject matter clearly and concisely. I think a semicolon may be unnecessary when listing muscles of the core as the clause following it is not a independent clause and rather a list, so a colon or no punctuation at all may better suit it. The lead does address significance, controversies, and background information. Additionally, the lead does have an informational tone without swaying with personal bias. Table of Contents: The sections are informational and offer clear subject areas. Subsections are needed though (for example, you could make two subsections in injury prevention: one for neck pain and one for back pain). The order seems to make sense, I don't think there would be a better order for the subject. Sections and Sub-Sections: The sections seem to fit the material nicely and the organization makes sense as well (states the subject material in beginning etc.). Statements are indeed cited yet the citations need to be referenced by using the "cite" tool when editing. Also embedding words to lead to other wikipedia articles would be helpful too. Tone: The article has an encyclopedic tone and although core exercises seem to be overall beneficial, you're still able to present the subject in an unbiased manner.

Nikolasbrady (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Lead Section:

There is no first sentence that leads into the article. I would say take the first sentence of the introduction paragraph of core strengthing to lead readers into the article. Then introduce the first section, so readers can understand and follow you, since you will be the guide through this article. Also in your first sentence try to say why this is important to know and even care about, if there's any controversies surrounding the foundation of core strengthening. You talked about Pilates, talk about what the new research is now with all these new exercises and shake weights that's being invented. Anything else that makes me slightly interested. Also don't forget to cite your sources.

Overall your tone is good and very informational.

Table of Contents:

Your TOC is pretty good, I see no errors, flows together in chronological order.

Sections and Sub-Sections:

In your first introductory paragraph, it started off flowing together orderly, but towards the middle, it did not connect with what informational was given in the beginning. Also your paragraphs have alot of information, make sure to split some of it up, so its just not a huge block of information being given to your readers.

I would suggest add more transition words, cite, and condense sentence flow to in all of the sections to make it easier to read.

Your tone is good overall throughout the article, very informal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmontford (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)