User talk:Alibarnabenelson/sandbox

Hello! I don't know if Wikipedia will show you who is reviewing your article, but this is Talia if you have any questions about my peer review please ask me in class I would love to chat about it more! First I really enjoyed what you have worked on so far I think it's pretty interesting and adds in a meaningful way to the Wikipedia page about Moderata Fonte, and I think they seem very interesting. But there is lots of things I could see you improving. first of all, I think someone already suggested edits to the article I agree with all of these and think you should put them in place.I think you need to add in a bigger intro to this paragraph because it seems very disconnected from the first few paragraphs: "One of Pozzo (Moderata)’s first known works is a musical play performed before the Doge Da Ponte in 1581 at the festival of St. Stephen’s Day. Le Feste [The Feasts] includes about 350 verses with several singing parts. Also in 1581, she published her epic poem I tredici canti del Floridoro [The Thirteen Cantos of Floridoro] dedicated to Bianca Cappello and her new husband, Francesco I de' Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany. This poem is perhaps the second chivalric work published by an Italian woman, after Tullia d’Aragona’s Il Meschino, which appeared in 1560. (needs a citation)". I think you could change it to say " [Out side of her personal life Pozzo was known as a play write, and a [blank]] One of Pozzo (Moderata)’s first known works is a musical play performed before the Doge Da Ponte in 1581 at the festival of St. Stephen’s Day. Le Feste [The Feasts] includes about 350 verses with several singing parts. Also in 1581, she published her epic poem I tredici canti del Floridoro [The Thirteen Cantos of Floridoro] dedicated to Bianca Cappello and her new husband, Francesco I de' Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany. This poem is perhaps the second chivalric work published by an Italian woman, after Tullia d’Aragona’s Il Meschino, which appeared in 1560. (needs a citation)". Finally, I think it's important to focus and build more on how she impacted feminist thought, as I don't think that is made clear and I think you can add that in (it's also important for the course). I think adding in and using more sources is important!

Peer review by Jenny Bouchier
I think the most glaring omission for the current live version (and something I don't really see incorporated into your draft?) is Fonte's impact or historical legacy. There are a few sentences at the end of the article, but I really think this could be expanded upon, especially since this is a history of feminism class. How exactly does she fit into the feminist narrative in Venice? Or Europe? There's a nice synopsis of the book, but how did the book impact the women of her time? What exactly did it mean for them? I think that the "life" section could be broken up with some parts of it expanded upon. In addition, I think the mentions of the book she wrote should be in english, though you can certainly have the italian name listed after -- or possibly in the "works" section. As it is, the reader can assume that this is the book she wrote but it should be changed for clarity. If you intend to keep the sentence about the 20th century women who renewed her legacy, remember to link to their wiki articles. There is also a mention of her "clear influence" to Plato -- this should be edited to have less "obvious" bias.

Jbouchie (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? User:Alibarnabenelson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Moderata Fonte Sandbox Draft

Guiding questions:

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there are existing introduction sentences for each section
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation

 * Edited portions made clear, contributions are easily seen

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation

 * The existing article has been peer reviewed and concisely edited thoroughly ensuring there is no grammar mistakes and that sources are applied where necessary

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

 * New additions to the existing article only stated straight facts and avoids any personal inputs that may persuade readers
 * The sandbox draft includes citations that may not have been provided in the existing article

Guiding questions:

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

 * Good use of scholarly sources to gather information from
 * Additional information with relevant sources provided in point form afterwards; not yet written into the draft

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes; no new sections have been added, only the existing sections from the original article have been edited

Organization evaluation

 * Edited portions are easily distinguishable and has contributed to better the existing article
 * Maybe "Giustizia delle donne" can be a sub header under the Works section instead of just being a section on its own

Images and Media
N/A

Guiding questions:

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the existing article has been edited and suggestions to improve sections has been considered
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The main additions from this draft are the citations, points from the original article are strengthened and more credible through the citation additions
 * How can the content added be improved? Follow through with creating a Themes and Outcomes section of her works; research and information has already been planned out

Overall evaluation

 * Potentially expand upon the recent theoreticians inspired by her ideas
 * Grammar and flow of the whole text was improved in the draft
 * The overall article is organized and provided proper citations

Agarma (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC) user:Agarma

Instructor Feedback. Note: This article has received three peer reviews.
This is an absolutely terrific start. You have found serious scholarship and have used it to strengthen the article. There is also a real maturity and command to the way you are managing the material. I don’t even feel much need to intervene too much in the process, because it seems that you have both a vision and a plan for the article. What I would say, though, is you definitely should use Ross, Sarah Gwyneth, The Birth of Feminism: Woman As Intellect In Renaissance Italy and England. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009 because it contains a lot of excellent material directly relevant to Fonte, and also provides a terrific larger context for her, including the names and works of many of her female contemporaries (some of whose names I listed on eclass). Both that book, and Jordan, Constance. Renaissance Feminism: Literary Texts and Political Models. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990, will help you with the Fonte article itself and with the work of integrating her into the bigger picture/narrative. She needs to be integrated into the History of Feminism. This also strikes me as a potentially interesting study for you to use: Hutson, Lorna. Feminism and Renaissance Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Note, however, that I have not read Hutson myself, nor have I heard of her, so I don’t know exactly what her orientation is, but I bet you could use the book somehow.--FeliceLifshitz (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)