User talk:Cattbrown86/sandbox/Riga
3/20 Evaluation by user:Avictory
[edit]Spelling & Grammar:
[edit]-Both are great! -"According to the Central Statics Bureau..." (Statistics?)
Language:
[edit]-Very good. Encyclopedic in tone, concise, and proper.
Organization:
[edit]-Great!
Coding:
[edit]-No coding errors in your references. -One minor thing: all of your in-text citations are spaced from the end punctuation. They should be right off the sentence.
Completeness:
[edit]-Each section looks good and complete. I assume you're still going to add to the "sex industry" part.
Relevance:
[edit]-Everything is relevant!
Citations:
[edit]-Needs one more. -All others open to legitimate, solid sources.
Hi Caitlin! This is very well-written; you did a really great job!Avictory (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Evaluations
[edit]3/21/2018 Evaluation by Reesehanson
[edit]Reese Hanson (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018
Spelling/Grammar
[edit]Exceeds Standards Everything looks perfect.
Language
[edit]Meets standards Very good diction.
Organization
[edit]Exceeds Standards It was broken up by section very well.
Coding
[edit]Meets Standards Everything looks good, can't find any errors.
Validity
[edit]Meets Standards Everything was sourced to information and looks valid.
Completion
[edit]Complete Very complete with lots of interesting information.
Relevance
[edit]Meets Standards All the information looked relevant and was current.
Sources
[edit]Meets standards All sources look to be up to standards.
Citations
[edit]Meets Expectations There are no errors in the citations and all look good.
References
[edit]Meets Standards Again everything looks good!.