Overall, your article is decent because it is accurate, has good sources, and is properly edited , and is credible. Your article does exactly what it is supposed to do but it lacks in one area and that is in quality. It lacks interest because it has just a bunch of facts that are just thrown at you.
The accuracy of it is perfect it is properly revised and edited frequently. In my English 112 class we discussed editing of articles and the reliability of Wikipedia.i there is an error it is fixed in a matter of minutes. You also give good sources because it is not just articles to back up your finding s but you also include various different books, which I was impressed with. The article is edited at least every week that I have seen so far over the history of the article, which brings new facts or information. The things I have mentioned before, which are: accuracy; good sources; and proper editing history; is what makes the article so credible because you know that your facts are not coming from false information because you have more than one source and they are various different types of sources to back up your research. The accuracy and editing history of your article go hand-in-hand because if the paper is not properly and frequently edited then the article is not accurate, but since your article is edited frequently most errors are removed quite quickly. The only thing is I hate your quality of writing. The way the article is written makes the article dry and completely boring. It lacks creativity and style, which are the key components of making just a good article become a great article. It’s the way you put words that make them interesting and, in my opinion, editors are supposed to organize the words to give them that pop makes the writing pop off the page, instead it was terribly boring with just a bunch of facts that were just thrown at you. Overall, the article was okay, but if given more than just facts it could be more than just ordinary.
From:
Sparkalena Boose
No comments:
Post a Comment