User talk:Avery Parr/sandbox

'Avery,

Your introductory section effectively describes the scene, the players and the language/terms you discuss further in the body of the article. All of the below information is also relevant to the topic and helps to show what the factors at play at the time were.

Yet, where you have efficiently told all the details of your story, the article does not yet fully articulate how all these details fit together in making a picture of Quebec Nationalism. Specifically, when you discuss "New France", all the information is relevant, but it never comes together to form a larger picture of how the existence of New France affected/affects Quebec Nationalism through history. Similarly, mostly in the middle of your second paragraph on "1960's", your sentences are many and too short, which results in a list of ideas that share a topic/subject, but that don't ever come together to make a cohesive image. The article, as a result, if very factual, but it has no vitality; I'm left wondering 'so what?'.

Something you could do to add a little life is to incorporate more examples of how these ideas acted out in the time. It's well enough to say "The province has a history of colonization and conquest that is complex and multi layered" (Parr, 1960's), but that statement would feel so much more real if I could see how those layers made the Province's history complicated. "Present Day" is another section which could use a reference to real life. I also think there is a lot you could pull from there, given the recent exodus of MP's from that party.

There is nothing wrong with what you have here, apart from some minor presentation elements like linking ideas together, and when you edit those out and add some context, I wouldn't find it out of place at all on your target page.

Ianwr (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Avery,

I truly enjoyed reading your draft article as it ties into the course content and book materials we have covered in class. I really like how you chose to edit a pre-existing article rather than create your own, however, I do believe your article could be restructured to be made more readable for individuals who may have less background knowledge on this topic, and you can improve on sentence structuring.

While reading this article, I felt that you have a good understanding of the topic, however I noticed a few minor issues you may want to adjust. For example, I found your lead section to be too specific. I believe you added too much detail into your lead and should reduce the specifics, such as the history of French Canadian's, to make this section more concise. The lead should be a summary of the article which briefly touches upon the various ideas in your article. You should discuss the specifics in the sections outlined in your lead.

Also, regarding some headings, I believe adding a "New France" section may cause some confusion for readers. You may instead want to include a paragraph under the 1534-1774 section of the article to ensure your ideas are organized in a manner similar to the existing article, which uses chronological sub-headings, and the 1950s section can be combined with the existing 1840s-1950s section. Regarding sentence structure, I believe some sentences may be difficult for someone with little knowledge on this topic. Without referring to specific examples, you may want to reduce the amount of periods used in your sentences. Personally, I find that too many periods can make lengthy reading jumbled and incomprehensible. This issue can be primarily observed underneath the 1960s subheading; I would advise finding a way to link the ideas rather than continuously list them. Also, You could instead use semicolons to pause or colons for lists. There were also minor grammatical errors, however this is expected of a draft article as my article likely contained errors t00. You may also want to find more sources to cite- I noticed you only had three. More sources will balance your article and provide different viewpoints.

Despite these minor issues which I believe you can improve on, you wrote a compelling and fact based article which will be a beneficial addition to the currently existing article.Pridenkom (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

'''Excellent feedback guys. Avery, Ian and Pride have made some very good suggestions. I think that Pride's suggestion about rethinking your subtitles will also help with Ian's overarching question of "so what?" Tpcanoe (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)'''