Talk:My Heart Hemmed In

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

IMPORTANT TIP for student authors: I would advise adding a new short section on racism in France, seen in the novel, since that seems to be a major theme in this novel. Here is a source and then link to Racism in France: https://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol2_2/seljuq.htm *Yseut229* (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So happy to see that you have started your Sandbox. *Yseut229* (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•Lead: The lead part of the article is extremely concise and well-written. There is not superfluous information, and it contains info that is not found elsewhere in the article. It introduces the book well and leaves the reader desiring to know more about the book. Well done.

•Content: All the content is relevant. I appreciated the content about the setting and genre especially, for it provided unique context and information about the book.

•Tone: I can hear Emma's audible excitement and her stomping feet when I read any French in this article, but other than that, the article is free from any bias and is very neutral. There is little room in this article to persuade in the first place, and Jessikah and Emma are very diligent in keeping the tone from becoming biased. Any sort of claim is backed by evidence.

•Sources and References: Speaking of evidence, there is plenty where that came from. There are 8 seemingly reliable sources, and they are used throughout the article to tie in insightful information about the author, setting, and book. All citation info and links seem on par to me. Nice work.

•Organization: This article is grammatically prepossessing. Special shoutout to the correctly placed prepositions. I did get lost a bit when reading about the plot, but not due to conventions. The characters section cleared up my confusion; therefore, the article is organized wisely and efficiently, following sound logic in its arrangement.

•Images: I was appalled at the lack of images. How dare you.

•Infobox: Infobox was stupendous. Great work. Best one I've seen today.

Both of you write very beautifully and have provided the world with a wonderful resource on what seems to be an interesting novel. While I don't have time to read it right now(thanks, Bulgakov), you've certainly piqued my interest. Well done. I miss you both! Calebconard (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emma.mae16, Ril.kah. Peer reviewers: Ggarrette3, Calebconard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

Good lead section. It gives a brief overview but is not too specific at the same time. The chart on the right of the section adds helpful, quality information about the novel. Ggarrette3 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

The analysis was very thorough; I corrected a couple of grammar issues but nothing big. It was somewhat unclear until the end that Ange was Nadia's second husband. I was confused as to whether she was remarried or had split with Ange, but other than that it did a nice job of describing each character as they were mentioned. After reading it, I feel like I have a good grasp on the story just by evaluating the characters' lives. Well done connecting each character's life and showing how they each relate back to Nadia, the main character. I like how you compared and contrasted the setting to Nadia's personality fluctuations. Good use of sources as well, implementing links to other Wikipedia articles. The setting is very important, and I think you did a wonderful job comparing the two cities. The genre section gives a thorough description; however, I thought it was a bit abstract. I found myself having to read over it multiple times to understand exactly what it was saying, but it is very well-written. I like the connections you made between the author and the protagonist, for I think it adds a whole new element to your article. It is interesting how their lives were so similar.Ggarrette3 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

Overall, the article was mostly neutral and paints the novel in an impartial light, but I did find it a little biased and abstract in certain places; however, it is very difficult not to be. I second Caleb in that I can just feel the stomping during this article. Ggarrette3 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and References[edit]

I checked out a few of your references, and they are scholarly and well-used. I thought it was neat how one of them was in a foreign language. Well done with the references especially in the genre section. Ggarrette3 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Organization[edit]

The article is extremely well organized. Great use of vocabulary and implementation of sections. I thought that your multiple sections together gave a really thorough overview of the novel, the characters, and the author. The section at the end that compared the author to the protagonist really stood out to me. Ggarrette3 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The chart in the lead section was well-done; however, I think adding at least a couple more images would make the article more effective. Even if it is just a picture of the cover or of the author, I think inserting more media would be powerful and help compromise some of the long sections. Ggarrette3 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary[edit]

Very nice use of vocabulary throughout the article. Your wording makes it sound like an encyclopedia, and I thought it was very well-written, sometimes even over my head (which is a good thing). Very nice job! Ggarrette3 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Analysis[edit]

Good job on the article. It is well-written and very informative. I think the sections you chose give a great overview of the novel and its author as well as give good insight on the novel's characters. The infobox you created was a nice touch as well, and I would consider adding more images to enhance the article, even if it is just a picture of the book cover or the author. Some of the ideas were a bit abstract and contained a little bit of bias, but I'm sure that is true in almost every article. You both did a wonderful and thorough job with this assignment, and I am honored to be a part! Ggarrette3 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten great advice above in your peer reviews; Grayson I am impressed with your formatting! IMPORTANT TIP: I would advise adding a new section on racism in France, since that seems to be a major theme in this novel. *Yseut229* (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]