User talk:Tbartlett16
Welcome!
Hello, Tbartlett16, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ice hockey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 5 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Ice hockey page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review #1
The lead section: From the lead section, I feel I have got to briefly know about major aspects of the sport of ice hockey. I think as a summary of a sport, the lead section provide the most useful contents for people researching about the topic.
Structure: I am in favor of the general layout. I think it would be better to place section 5 under section 1, and to put section 3 after section 6.
Balance: I don't think there is any major point left out. And everything in this page are on-topic with ice hockey.
Neutral: The article is basically neutral in tone. Generally the contributors were adding contents in an objective perspective. Most parts are supported by references. In parts without many citations, I could barely find non-neutral words or phrases. On the whole, the article is narrated in on behalf of external resources with credits for original creators.
Reliable Sources:
Mainly the article uses a long list of published books, journals, and online articles, which account for various statements in the article. Most statements that are not followed by a link to an item in the reference list contain hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles, which talk about certain points in more details and provide external sources.Yuhanqiu (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review #1
The Lead Section: I feel as though the lead gives an extensive and very thorough explanation. The lead provides a very good background but there seems to be a lot of info that could potentially be put below in the other sections of the body so the lead isn't too 'bogged' down.
Structure: The structure is cohesive and works well with the topic. I would maybe suggest moving the history of women's ice hockey directly under the general history in the beginning. Moving it up and towards the men's and general history could be easier for the reader to navigate and understand.
Balance: Article is on topic and nothing seems out of place as far as information goes.
Neutral: Article is neutral in tone and doesn't make claims based in opinion, only fact.
Sources: reliable sources that come from books, online, and various databases. Lots of sources that range from 2015 to as far back as 2002.