User talk:Aciccia93/sandbox

Alfred's peer review
- Make sure that you are careful with the use of commas in the first edit you posted in your sandbox - I think that the sentence in your second edit in your sandbox regarding L'Engle's scientific and religious relations to her life is a little awkward and could be placed before the quotation you provided. - I think your last edit in the Sandbox is great

- Does the writer employ concise, plain language? Are any sentences awkward or lengthy? Are there any weasel words? What revisions or proofreading to individual sentences would you recommend? I think that you use a variety of large words in your edits, but they get the point across more succinctly than some plainer language. I t may be hard for some readers to understand, but I think that it is a good use of vocabulary. I think that one of the sentences regarding L'Engle's scientific and religious relations to her life seem a bit awkward, but that may just be the placement of the sentence. Other than that, all of the other sentences are constructed well. I would recommend checking the placement of the sentence I mentioned above and maybe using less sophisticated vocabulary in some parts to help readers understand more fully, although not necessary in some cases.

- Does each sentence convey a factual claim? Is each sentence cited? One citation per statement is the minimum expectation. No original research should be included. Each sentence does convey a factual claim presented by the sources you have found through the Library's website and other sources online. However, you did not cite some of your sentences. I would recommend you cite as many sentences as possible in order to be safe with Wikipedia's guidelines. I think it would be better to overcite than to undercite in this scenario.

- Does each sentence attribute viewpoints to the people who hold them/the source? Does the writer need to add signal phrases? You explain in each sentence where the opinion is coming from, which is great. You use phrases such as "_____ says..." or "____ believes that..." rather than using overarching opinion statements such as "Many people believe that...". I do not think you need to add more signal phrases. Your edits show where the information is coming from succinctly and without confusion. - If writer has composed an entire paragraph, does it flow logically? Is anything unclear to you? You did not compose an entire paragraph. However, the few sentences that you did string together made complete sense and I felt that you did this well. I did not find anything unclear and found it to give me more information than the original had.

- Do you need more information or clarifications to understand the drafted materials? Since you provided the context in which these drafted materials would be placed in the article, I was not confused with your edits. In fact, they made me understand more of the article and how it related to L'Engle's life. I think that no more information is necessary to understand your edits, besides the fact that citations are needed.

- If the drafted materials is to be included in the lead-in section, review relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I think that you followed Wikipedia guidelines in the lead-in section and just added more information to make things more clear in the article. You did not violate their standards in the lead-in section.

- Suggest changes that create a formal tone. According to Wikipedia, here are a few words to watch out for: legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique; notably, it should be noted, arguably, interestingly, essentially, actually, clearly, of course, without a doubt, happily, tragically, aptly, fortunately, unfortunately, untimely; supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called, some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said…. I do not believe that you used these words that Wikipedia highlights as detrimental to an article. However, I do believe that one of your sentences could be rephrased to not include such a wide audience in the wording. "Nevertheless, there remains doubt to whether the novel truly can be considered to contain religious undertones." I think you could use different wording in the beginning of this sentence to say that not everyone doubts that there are religious undertones, but this may be fine in the context of the sentence. Apolizzotto4 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)