User talk:Suby1234/Kenzi language

Peer Edit

Hi Suby1234, it seems that you did not add a lot of information or new sources to the article. The lead section could be better developed with additional information, and the article could include more sections such as ones on grammar, the alphabet, culture, and phonography. Images and Media would also be helpful for the readers to understand the information on the page. With what you did write, you used a neutral and unbiased tone, and should continue doing do for the rest of the article. You also need to add more sources, as there are not that many for a reliable Wikipedia article.

Lg720 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Lg720

Starting Draft Page

Hi Suhayb, it looks like you didn't get very far with this assignment. You didn't include a lead paragraph (the rubric required you to do so) and most of these references that you took from the original article are just not acceptable under the grading rubric for this assignment (please check it out). You'll need to find some better ones out there. If you used the trick I recommended with Google Scholar, you'd find lots of good resources on this language: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=kenuzi+language&btnG=

Please try again and resubmit. Chuck Haberl (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Final Review

Hi Suhayb, this is my feedback for your final project. As a reminder, the 6 points on which I'm grading you are Language, Structure, Balance, Accuracy, Relevance, and Length. Here are my assessments on each of those areas:

1. Language: On the whole, the article employs proper English spelling and grammar, but it could benefit from proofing to be a bit more focused, and it is occasionally unencyclopedic. 4 points.
2. Structure: The article follows its own template but some attempt is made at organizing the information. 4 points.
3. Balance: At present, the article appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 5 points.
4. Accuracy: It is sometimes hard to assess the accuracy of the information. Not all of the claims are supported with references, and there is a strange hybrid system of (author, date) references and more traditional Wikipedia references. One of the author-date references, (Gilmore, C, 2015), is totally missing. 3 points.
5. Relevance: Not all of the information is relevant to the subject. 4 points.
6. Length: Word count 899/2000 (including headers but not bibliography). 2 points.

The final score is 22/30. Have a great summer! Chuck Haberl (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)