Bio
Your bio looks great! You should move it to your actual user page, so it will be easier to see. Don’t forget to add [[Category:Student Editors]], too. Welcome! —Grlucas (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review of Dana McGonagill's Contributions to the course
This peer-review summarizes the strengths of your contributions to the course and Project Mailer and suggestions for continued excellence
- Journal
Your journal posts demonstrate not only your commitment to the course but also outstanding writing skills. Your posts show that you are following the instructions, with frequent and informed references to the course textbook. I find them to be a pleasure to read.
- Discussions
As you note in your journal entries, a huge contribution you have made to the course discussions is during the cleanup process. Your comments are relevant, your editing skills are exemplary, and you show respect towards other people’s ideas and comments, while at the same time being very willing to step up and let others know when something has been left out or if information is not accurate.
- Norris Church Mailer Bio
Contributions to NCM bio show that from the original critique of the original biography, through to the final, more concise bio, you have indeed focused on the 5 Wikipedia pillars. You were able to hone in on taking out all but the most relevant information in the bio, and your work on the citations brought it all together.
- Project Mailer/An American Dream
Contributions to Project Mailer, from the article you transcribed, to the letters you posted, to your work on the appendix, you show an eye to detail and you clearly go above and beyond. Even though you confess in your journal to starting the class with little knowledge of Wikipedia, your contributions to Project Mailer show that you have not only embraced the challenge but mastered it. You clearly refer frequently to the Wikipedia training material, including their tips for how to cite, how to link, and how to edit a document successfully. I look to your contributions for guidance when I am having (frequent) trouble with code. I saw very few corrections being made by the professor and others to your posts.
- Continued success and improvement
This is a hard one because, honestly, I see little in your writing that is at lacking. At times, I want to read more from you in your journals, to hear more of your ideas, but I know that you have made it a goal to be more concise, and you are accomplishing that. Dr. Lucas did point out some formatting details for your PM article, but you went to the sample and made adjustments quickly. I don’t think you’re having any trouble with adding images any more, but the wiki folks sent me this link, if you need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illustrating_Wikipedia_brochure_(Wiki_Education_Foundation).pdf
You are amazingly helpful and supportive when you point out problems with posts. If anything, you probably don’t give yourself enough credit in your journals when you say you struggle. It is clear to me that you know how to navigate the course better than just about anyone in the course and that you follow the trail in the syllabus so that you do everything you are supposed to do to be the major contributor that you are to the success of the course and to Project Mailer. JVbird (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@JVbird: Wow, Josef. I think this is the most supportive & polite constructive feedback of any of my work that anyone has ever given me. Thank you. And, your use of headers, concise writing, and attention to detail in creating the parallel format here is outstanding!.
(Dmcgonagill (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC))