Talk:Three Poems

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmichelleh.

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

Peer review by loving classmate, 1
You have a really good start here, User:Bmichelleh. There's words, structure, and sources. A few suggestions:
 * I made an edit or two for tone/language. Wikipedia articles must be neutral; anything interpretative (praise, critique, etc.) has to be clearly ascribed to a reliable source.
 * Make the three sections on these three poems into subsections of a larger section marked "Content".
 * Needs some more sections--typically, it needs one called "Criticism" or "Reception" or something like that. Plus, a section for whatever else you can cull from the sources--and I strongly suggest you write a section called "Form" or something like that in which you discuss all the poetic forms that she uses, and how, and in which poems, and why, and what the reviewers say about that, and what it might be influenced by, etc.
 * Clean up the sources: obviously the formatting machine came up with something crazy for reference 2. Click "edit source" to adjust and tweak the various parameters in the template. 4 and 5 need this too.
 * For the first one, I formatted the quote with a formatting gimmick: copy the code (again, best seen in "edit source") and apply it in the same way to the other sections.
 * Oh, and explain what "marked by repetition" means: read those reviews again and try to explain that using their words.

Good work--carry on. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But let me add this: I was wondering about your sources, half of which aren't all that great--and then I see that you used only a few of the more than half a dozen sources that I found! You need to get busy, find those sources, generate content. It is all there. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Peer review from a "friendly classmate"
Lead- The lead here is very strong. You cover all the basis for the importance of the article and you reference things that aren't mentioned in the rest of the article, but you could explain the awards further in the article if you are able to find anything about the meaning of winning the award to the author further in the article above or below criticism. A couple of the sentences sound like you could start a background part of the article if you could find more information on the starting process of writing the book up until it's publish.

Structure- The structure is definitely up to par, but you could definitely separate each individual poem with individual sections.

Balanced Coverage- The article seemed to cover every basis needed to make this article have a strong starting path for a "GA", but definitely could use a little more work into each individual poem.

Neutral content- Definitely well balanced and no argumentative structure formed.

Sourcing- Good, strong reliable sources.

Overall the article is in very good shape and only needs minor adjustments and some more words to make this a very good thing. Thank you for the article. Cjefferys (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review from the girl you sit next to in class
In the lead there is adequate information concerning the background of the poem and its creation. May want to mention that three poems is not just the title, but there is literally 3 poems in Three Poems. I would make the titles of the three poems in the content section into subheadings so its more organized/clean-looking. Under the ‘style’ section maybe throw in a couple sentences giving an example where she uses her style in a specific section of a poem? Other than that you have good, reliable sources and the article looks balanced as well as well-written.GAJH123 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)