Talk:White Chrysanthemum

Novels Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madisonnroot.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill DeLong Peer Review[edit]

Madison does a great job of conducting a thorough and heartfelt summary of the novel, White Chrysanthemums. I like the way she organizes her summaries by honing in on the different perspectives of the narrative. It's clear, concise and keeps the form of the book in mind. It also does a good job of avoiding argumentative standpoints and aligns with the wiki rules. Topics of rape and human trafficking can be quite emotional and difficult to convey neutrally, but Madison accurately depicts the sensitive subjects of the novel very well without arguing for a certain reading/interpretation of the text. Something I pick up from Madison (that I hope to build on in my article) is her concise organization and sentence structure.

Lead

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes. The lead is informative without getting fully into the plot yet, and gives historical/publication context.

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Absolutely!

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? Nothing I can tell is missing.

Structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Yes

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Everything seems on point.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Perhaps adding a section on reception/criticism/theory of the novel would be helpful to provide some balanced perspectives (I'm sure she is planning to do this anyway!).

Balance/Neutrality

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No.

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No.

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No.

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No.

Sourcing

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Not yet.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No.

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Not yet.

To Jill, From Madison[edit]

Thank you Jill for your kind and thoughtful response(s)! I would LOVE to add criticism, but the novel has only been out since January of 2018, so unfortunately there is no criticism in which I am able to list. Perhaps in the future I'll wish to revisit this article and add criticism then. Madisonnroot (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

I wonder if you need all that plot summary? I think it would be helpful too to include some critical response/reception. If The Sympathizer is your model page - - perhaps reducing the summary so that you can add a section on "Themes"? If I were a Wikipedia browser looking for info on the novel - - a little summary to give me a taste of the plot would be nice, but I'd also be interested in other contexts. Profhanley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Professor Feedback[edit]

Dr. Hanley, thank you for your insights. The novel was published in January of 2018, and I am having trouble, I imagine, finding critical (academic) responses to it because of its recency. I could add other receptions that are less academic, and perhaps the article would benefit since I am not writing this purely for an academic audience. I will research more in that area. I am unsure if I will be able to uncover sources that contribute to theme, but I will do my best and see what I can come up with. Thank you again. Best, Madisonnroot (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]