User talk:Sydneycampbell724/sandbox

Unit 2 Peer Review

Overall I think the information added for improvement is clear and neutral but maybe you can expand more on it. I think you should provide more examples for the background in Europe, maybe mention some stadiums or arenas like you did in the USA section. Also, you should work more on balancing the coverage of the article by continuing to develop more on the size of subsidies section and the benefits section, as the length of these two is short in comparison to the other sections. Good use of neutral language, the article is unbiased. The sources provided look reliable. I agree with you in removing the NASCAR sentence from criticism as it is off-topic and has no source to support it. Danielazea (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Unit 2 Peer Review

I think you did a good job writing your lead in regards to how it is brief, easy to understand, and gives me an idea of what the article is about. However, I would start by improving the lead of your article by adding a sentence or two on why subsidies can be so important. I would also be careful with the lack of sources in the background part of your article. The first and last paragraphs don't have any sources supporting what you've said and the writing style here sounds slightly like you're talking from your personal knowledge not facts. According to our module, good Wikipedia articles should have an even matter of information dedicated to multiple parts of the article so I would then add more subject matter to the size of subsidies part of your article. I would say you did a good job of defining the scope of the article overall. Lastly, I would maybe add some famous stadiums that have received subsidies and maybe a picture of it. Lythammari (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lythammari (talk • contribs)