Talk:Literacy with an Attitude

Untitled
Hi All,

I am a little concerned about each of us doing this on our own pages and copying and pasting over, because when I tried to do that, the citations were not brought along with the rest of the text. Perhaps that is my own error, but if it is not easily correctible, maybe we should each choose times to work on it, so that we can work directly on the page without overlapping.

Also, is it actually possible to change the citation format? ThanksKematt1203 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you copy and paste the sections for chapters 3-6? I was wondering why there is nothing cited for these chapters. If not, we need citations for that section for sure. Aribug (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also if we could find sources for the executive vs elite vs working class school definitions that would be bomb. I think we can cite the book, since the terms are explicitly defined there, but double check. Aribug (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Impact vs. Critical Reception
I know at first we decided that a lot of our sources did not necessarily fall under 'critical reception' but was rather 'impact on the education community,' but I'm wondering if we should actually include both sections. A lot of our info, except for the part about the book inspired by Finn, is more about reception than influence. I have some sources for influence, so making it two smaller sections might make more sense. Let me know! Aribug (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

18 April
I think that the Synopsis might be too in depth. Yet, I am conflicted because Felicia put a lot of time into this. I just find the immense detail in the chapter summaries to be very in depth and not common for a wikipedia page.

Let me know if you agree or disagree Nelliebonham (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)nelliebonham


 * I also am curious about this, especially as some chapters get more detail than others. I wonder, too, why certain chapters are grouped together. Is this because of the way Finn organizes the book? If so, could the summaries be by section rather than by chapter? You all are more familiar with the text, so these are just questions for your consideration. As you try to finalize your decision, think about a) Wikipedia protocol, i.e., what you notice on other articles similar to yours and b) what a hypothetical reader comes to the article in search of. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

small note on word choice
I've noticed other students who use the term, "novel," loosely to mean "book-length work." In my mind, and as far as I know professionally, the term, "novel," refers to fiction. I think you might confuse readers about the nonfiction nature of this text. I'd recommend the more generic term, "book." Aschuet1 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to future editors
In terms of things that could be added in the future, we believe that a more concise synopsis section with multiple outside sources would help add verifiability to this article. Due to the time constraints we had it was difficult to truly enrapture all of the points we needed to capture in the synopsis section. Also, if future editors are able to find more on how this book impacted the education community, that would be beneficial. In our research, we found multiple articles where Finn had been cited. Yet, we did not have the time needed to go through all of the research extensively.

Nelliebonham (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)nelliebonham