User talk:Riya97/sandbox

The intro sentences about Toronto generally, don't really fit into your section. Keep in mind that this will be part of a bigger article [1] where Toronto is already introduced. You could put general info from your article into the larger article, if you have some that isn't already there.

Your article is nicely organized, but some of the sentences are confusing Re-read carefully.

Much of the info in the section labeled "Italian Language in Canada" seems to belong to the "Status" section.

Your section on "Status" needs more specific facts and less generalizations.

It will be helpful to provide links to the various resources (institutional supports, for ex.) directly in the text. Interested readers can then check them out.

Remember also that this is an article about heritage languages in TORONTO, so stats/facts related to other regions don't really belong here.

Good research and choice of references. Check their formatting, esp. capitalization. I'm not sure what is going on with this citation: "contenu, English name of the content author / Nom en anglais de l'auteur du. "English title / Titre en anglais". www12.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-10." Naomi TBB199 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Slightly irrelevant information

Some of the information you wrote is a little bit off topic, particularly where you mentioned how many people of visible minority status live in Canada, as for the "Demographics" subheading, I would see if you can find statistics that are slightly more recent considering your data is a decade old by this point. The article is a good start but remember we are talking specifically about the Italian language in Toronto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Wolf (talk • contribs) 23:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The information you provide is very interesting. However, I believe it would be more fun to explore the 'institution support' part a lit more. You can provide some specific institutions and insert some media of them. :) But nice work in general! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitong M (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

1. It is a really good article, with a really good structure and a lot of good subtopics can easily make sense. 2.Some data and some statistical resource to prove the facts but still you can add a little bit more data in each section of the whole article under each subtopics. You can add one or two statistic graph in this article from the reference you have read. 3. It is really good to have 6 citation in your article. 4. The original photo that you have took by yourself is fit with this article perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingxin Wang (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

peer review

1. It is a really good article, with a really good structure and a lot of good subtopics can easily make sense. 2.Some data and some statistical resource to prove the facts but still you can add a little bit more data in each section of the whole article under each subtopics. You can add one or two statistic graph in this article from the reference you have read. 3. It is really good to have 6 citation in your article. 4. The original photo that you have took by yourself is fit with this article perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingxin Wang (talk • contribs) 02:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)