User talk:Paig5/sandbox edit 3

6/11/2019 Evaluation by Gabbym9903

Gabbym9903 (Gabbym9903) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Points: 37/40
• Grade: 92.5%

Spelling/Grammar

Does not meet standard. There are some improvements that need to be made on the spelling and grammar of the edit.

1. "willing to take in many people," there shouldn't be a comma after "people"

2. "when the Huguenots (french protestants)", french needs to be capitalized

3. " the first city in the United kingdom to sign up" capitalize "kingdom"

4. "Vulnerable persons Relocation Scheme (VPRS)" capitalize "persons"

5. "Un High Commissioner for Refugees" un should be UN

6. "in 1951, this lead to and influx of" and should be an

7. "0.1% of Bradfords population" --> Bradford's

8. "mass persucution in their homme coutnry of Myanmar" --> Mass PROSECUTION in their HOME COUNTRY

9. "refugees are able to use.One of the" Add space after the period

Language

Meets Standard. The language of the edit looks good, there doesn't seem to be any mistakes.

Organization

Nearly meets standard. I would recommend splitting the content into more paragraphs that are smaller rather than 2 huge ones. It's easier to follow that way.

Coding

Meets Standard The coding seems correct.

Validity

Meets Standard The information included seems correct and the only thing I would recommend is to maybe include some more scholarly sources, rather than so many news articles.

Completion

Meets Standard The edit meets the 5 paragraphs and 20 sources requirements.

Relevance

Meets Standard The information is relevant and corresponds to the topic.

Sources

Meets Standard The sources correspond to the topic and to Wikipedia's policies and they can be easily accessed through the links provided.

Citations

Meets Standard All citations look correct, except #8 that needs a period before it and #20, which has an unnecessary space.

References

Meets standard. All references seem well-written and formatted.

6/11/2019 Evaluation by Afackrell

Afackrell (Afackrell) 22:30, 11 June 2019 (PST)

• Points: 34/40
• Grade: 85%

Spelling/Grammar

Standard? In addition to the mistakes Gabby found... "an influx of refugees" not and "them. While working" Just missing a space after the period. "life-saving treatment" You need to add an article, "a life-saving"? "there are also approximately" area -- are "Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon" Add a comma after Jordan "In Bradford," Add a comma "Sudan, Eritrea, and Iraq" Add a comma after Eritrea There is a couple of places program is misspelled. I think you are going off the organization names but I believe they should still be spelled "program" over "programme" "sources that refugees are able" Take out "the" "to use. One of the companies" Missing space after the period. "companies that are is -- are "housing and helping" No comma "others in the area, is" are -- is centre -- center

• organization
• high-quality
• dependents
  • • HIGHLY RECOMMEND DOWNLOADING GRAMMARLY TO YOU COMPUTER OR RUNNING IT THROUGH SOME SPELL CHECK

Language

Does not meet standard. The second sentence has an opinion. I don't think you can claim whether something is good or bad; must be strictly informative. You start many sentences with the city name, "Bradford". Maybe use "the city/town" to mix up your language and be less repetitive. "The earliest known occurrence"? I recommend something other than "point". You also feature a long quote towards the end of your first paragraph I believe could be summarized.

Organization

Nearly meets standard. Organization of heading, body, and citations looks good. As Gabby recommended, I think your information could benefit from being split into more paragraphs.

Coding

Exceeds standard Perfect Code.

Validity

Nearly meets standard I am not quite sure what information you are attributing to your first source. Maybe because the second sentence is formatted more like an opinion but it is not clear how it relates, especially after viewing the actual source.

Completion

Meets Standard It seems to meet the five paragraph requirement in terms of volume but as I mentioned previously, the two extremely large paragraphs make the information harder to digest.

Relevance

Meets Standard Little irrelevant content.

Sources

Meets Standard Could possibly benefit from fewer news sources and more peer-reviewed articles or journals.

Citations

Meets Standard All citations look correct, besides what was pointed out by Gabby.

References

Exceeds standard. Present and in a perfect pre-defined format

6/17/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright

DrMichaelWright (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You have interesting material, but it is poorly formatted and not fit for Wikipedia. Your previous projects were not this bad. While I agree with you that helping refugees is a wonderful thing, this text is unbalanced and serves as a poor cheerleading piece for the city of Bradford. That is not what a Wikipedia article should have.

• Points: 26/40
• Grade: 65%

Spelling/Grammar

Meets standard.

• "persucution"
• "...0.1% of Bradford's population[8]" Sentences should end with periods.

Language

Does not meet standard.

• Numerous examples of non-neutral language.
• Numerous direct quotes.
• "We" is whom?
• "They also have a very helpful resource page that links to places like Bradford Action for Refugees which is all about supporting asylum seekers and refugees, Bradford City of Sanctuary which is a group of volunteers working to extend the culture of welcome and hospitality to those seeking sanctuary in Bradford, resources like the City of Sanctuary national website which is a movement committed to building a culture of hospitality and welcome, especially for refugees seeking sanctuary from war and persecution, and the Bradford Resource Centre (BIASAN) which is providing drop-in with hot food, legal advice, women & children support, musical, artistic & gardening activities." 'This is one sentence!!

Organization

Does not meet standard.

• Paragraphs are too long.
• No easily readable structure.

Coding

Nearly meets standard.

• Thankfully, there are no glaring code errors.
• Numerous terms lack wikilinks.
• Too many terms have external links, which you should avoid altogether in your text. (References are another matter.)

Validity

Does not meet standard.

• "When Bradford signed the Refugee Convention in 1951" Bradford did not sign the convention - the United Kingdom did.
• "The Bradford Rohingya are the largest collection of an ethnic group outside their home country." This is not true. Your source says that they are "...the biggest community of the ethnic group in Europe," which changes the meaning entirely.
• "Bradford now hosts 106 Syrian refugees" - Why are you saying "now" when the article from which you took the information is from nearly 4 years ago? Another source you cite says there are/were more than 200 Syrian refugees.

Completion

Meets standard.

• There is a lot of material here, just very little of it is suitable for Wikipedia, even if your topic - generally speaking - is both interesting and could be made to be relevant.

Relevance

Does not meet standard.

• Too much of this text is about other institutions. There should be wikilinks to other wikipedia articles with that information.
• “The UNHCR estimates more than half of the country’s pre-war population has been displaced, with at least 6.5 million Syrians displaced internally and 3.8 million Syrians registered as refugees in countries in the Middle East and North Africa.” What purpose does this quote serve?

Sources

Does not meet standard.

• None of the sources were peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

Citations

Does not meet standard. Too much relies on direct quotes without in-text citation. Relying on just a citation note to a reference at the bottom is not enough for direct quotations. Also, you really should not be using direct quotations unless there is something just very specific about the wording. At that point it just reads like text filler. I highlighted the quotes to just get a sense of their volume.

References

Nearly meets standard.

• While the references look fairly decent on the face, they would have been better if they had been created using the citation templates. That would have generated the proper quotation marks, italics, and have eliminated the long visible URLs.
• Inconsistent date formats.