User talk:Bappelman3/sandbox

It still needs more work. Not all of the work for the article has been posted into the sandbox yet so it will be harder to peer review it. I will be able to properly review it once all the info is uploaded.

Puppylover78 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChloeGui's 2nd Peer Review

- The 1st thing I notice is that the headings seem off— typically the Wikipedia headings are the ones with the lines underneath, the emboldened subheading being for just that, subheadings

- 1st paragraph needs cited

- “The practice of plagiarizing by use of sufficient word substitutions to elude detection software is known as rogeting .” – needs cited and the period is off

- “Computer-assisted plagiarism detection (CaPD) is an Information retrieval (IR) task supported by specialized IR systems, referred to as plagiarism detection systems (PDS).” – needs cited

- In the last paragraph under “Plagairism Detection,” you have a Wikilink for “Plaraism Detection” in the last line with no sentence around it

- “Effectiveness of in higher education settings” is off – fix grammar and I feel like the section as a whole needs cited better

- Written very well so far though!

- I love the use of an image

- “Fingerprinting” and “String Matching” seem like too big of sections with a lot of info for only 1 source each, but if that’s all that was necessary, then it’s fine; it just seems off to me

- Under “Performance,” you have 6 sources in the middle of the 1st sentence and they seem very out of place, and if anything, rather excessive

- “Figures” used in the way of “Pictures” should then also have a number or letter (some way of identifying which one you mean specifically since you have more than 1 picture on your page)

- Great looking table

- Too many “citation needed” messages

- The sources you have themselves look good

ChloeGui (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lawson's Peer Review[edit]

The lead in section is very good, but a little long. It is a lot to take in for a summary of what is going to be discussed. The approaches section could use a little more information or clarification. The picture is small and should be enlarged if possible. There are many citations needed in the software section. There is balanced coverage throughout the page. The content is neutral and reliable sources are used. The structure is clear and understandable. The lead section is lengthy and gives a lot of information for someone that might not know anything about plagiarism detection. Software section is missing citations.

Adamlawson13 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mazey's peer review ==

The first paragraph of the first sections needs a citation. Your next bit about "roteging" needs a citation also. I think your subheadings for the whole thing need adjusted. The "approaches" sections needs a citation. The writing that comes after the picture in the subheading "performance" needs a few more citations throughout. Over all this was a good article and I liked that you included pictures. --Mkizer99 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The adding an image was really neat! Your citations need a little work. I like your use of many subtitles so its easy to understand and look at. It really enlightened me to see all of the little sections for each term. There do seem to be a lot so its kind of jumbled for someone like me who likes simplicity. Other than that it was a really good article! It'll be really useful for students in the future whose professors tell them about it and they want to read more on it. Kwilliams14 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]