Difference between revisions of "Talk:Google Maps"
(Created page with "Length Not Quite 3000 words, keep going! Structure Opening paragraph looks great! Body paragraph seems to be missing a bit of substance but the essence is there. Some informa...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Length | + | Length: |
| + | |||
Not Quite 3000 words, keep going! | Not Quite 3000 words, keep going! | ||
| − | Structure | + | Structure: |
| + | |||
Opening paragraph looks great! Body paragraph seems to be missing a bit of substance but the essence is there. Some information is missing sources, so be sure everything is backed up by a reliable source. When you fill in the rest of the info make sure it's all well cited. | Opening paragraph looks great! Body paragraph seems to be missing a bit of substance but the essence is there. Some information is missing sources, so be sure everything is backed up by a reliable source. When you fill in the rest of the info make sure it's all well cited. | ||
| − | Clarity | + | Clarity: |
| + | |||
Summary is cohesive, but ethical dilemmas are a bit murky – this section could use some expansion to bring the stake of the article into focus. | Summary is cohesive, but ethical dilemmas are a bit murky – this section could use some expansion to bring the stake of the article into focus. | ||
| − | Objective reporting (Neutral point of view) | + | Objective reporting (Neutral point of view): |
| + | |||
So far objectivity looks really good! Be careful once you add the ethical dilemmas that you don’t let any personal bias come in and shroud up the clarity of the article. Overall off to a great start and best of luck finishing it :) | So far objectivity looks really good! Be careful once you add the ethical dilemmas that you don’t let any personal bias come in and shroud up the clarity of the article. Overall off to a great start and best of luck finishing it :) | ||
Revision as of 19:44, 1 February 2022
Length:
Not Quite 3000 words, keep going!
Structure:
Opening paragraph looks great! Body paragraph seems to be missing a bit of substance but the essence is there. Some information is missing sources, so be sure everything is backed up by a reliable source. When you fill in the rest of the info make sure it's all well cited.
Clarity:
Summary is cohesive, but ethical dilemmas are a bit murky – this section could use some expansion to bring the stake of the article into focus.
Objective reporting (Neutral point of view):
So far objectivity looks really good! Be careful once you add the ethical dilemmas that you don’t let any personal bias come in and shroud up the clarity of the article. Overall off to a great start and best of luck finishing it :)
