User:Sohaha1221!/sandbox

Intertextuality is the shaping of a text's meaning by another text. It is the interconnection between similar or related works of literature that reflect and influence an audience's interpretation of the text. Intertextual figures include: allusion, quotation, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche and parody. Intertextuality is a literary device that creates an 'interrelationship between texts' and generates related understanding in separate works. These references are made to influence the reader and add layers of depth to a text, based on the readers' prior knowledge and understanding. '''The structure of intertextuality in turn depends on the structure of influence. ''' Intertextuality is a literary discourse strategy utilised by writers in novels, poetry, theatre and even in non-written texts (such as performances and digital media). Examples of intertextuality are an author's borrowing and transformation of a prior text, and a reader's referencing of one text in reading another.

Intertextuality does not require citing or referencing punctuation (such as quotation marks) and is often mistaken for plagiarism. Intertextuality can be produced in texts using a variety of functions including allusion, quotation and referencing. However, intertextuality is not always intentional and can be utilised inadvertently. There are t'''wo types of Intertextuality: iterability and presupposition. iterability makes reference to the "repeatability" of certain text that is composed of "traces", pieces of other texts that help constitute its meaning. Presupposition makes a reference to assumptions a text make about its readers and its context.'''  As philosopher William Irwin wrote, the term "has come to have almost as many meanings as users, from those faithful to Julia Kristeva's original vision to those who simply use it as a stylish way of talking about allusion and influence".

Review from Bella and Anhella
The first source is good for you topic, but we believe there is more out there and better ones than the second source used. It'a just examples of what its not suppose to look like and we don't think it reliable enough.

Review from Matheus and Brooke
The first source is a 10/10. Looks great but I think the second source could be something a bit more reliable than just a definition. The applicability and usefulness is definitely something that can be used. We would say overall 7 or 8 out of 10 for the usefulness. No need for pronunciation. We're not so sure if you are just trying to replace the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page or just trying to add to it. It wouldn't make sense to add to it, and not an appropriate placement. The sentences aren't very clear and it sounds like you are writing an essay. Citations are in the correct places.

Review from Mandy and Radhika
The first source is reliable and has good information. The second source is a little less so. The content of your contribution is good and it fits in with the rest of the article but sounds a little to similar to the first paragraph. It feels like the term intertextuality was already defined in the first paragraph. It does seem like appropriate placement if edited to vary a little more from the first paragraph. I would say to be careful with the last sentence since it sounds a little opinionated. The citations are appropriately placed.

Review from Amanda L. and Ashley C.
- I would check punctuation, it seems a little off.

- I liked how you added a pronunciation key, it is helpful

Review From Kerv and Chris
The first source is very credible and great, and tone is also great. Make contribution more clear.