User talk:B4Melly/sandbox

Peer Review
You have a great article outlined here. It is clear that you have done a lot of research and have a lot of information to add to Wikipedia. You've used both internal and external links effectively on the page to give the reader plenty of connected information. Your headers are clear and communicate the ideas under them effectively. Your lead is strong and gives a good sense of the information to come.

The Biography section has a few grammar mistakes. First, you need a space between "fromUniversity" and the word "the" before University as well. You should capitalize "linguistics" as it is a field of studies and the same with "museum studies." I'm unsure if "certification" is the right word here -- was it a certificate in museum studies, possibly? I am also unsure why you used a quote to speak about her residency. This seems easy to reword and the quote seems unnecessary and perhaps in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. You could also possibly bring her scholarship and teaching career into the lead.

You have "Career" as a sub-heading but could it possibly be it's own heading? Or, alternately, if you further sectioned out the Biography (ex. Early Life, Schooling, Career, etc...), having "Career" as a sub-heading will make more sense. The line "has been a recipient" is a little wordy and could be shortened to just "received." The add-on "just to name a few" seems too casual for an encyclopedia entry and is also redundant considering the sentence starts with "including."

The section "Poetry & Narrative Analysis" mentions that she has mixed heritage. Might this be more relevant in the Biography section or perhaps even in the lead? I am not sure that the poetic analysis is necessary to an encyclopedia entry. It takes up a lot of space to speak to specific poems and while this is good work that probably took a long time, it does not seem appropriate for this page. Is this your own analysis of the works? If not, it should be cited. If it is, unfortunately this is also inappropriate for encyclopedia writing. Any analysis mentioned on this page should be sourced to a published reviewer and possibly headed as "Critical Analysis" instead. Scholarly sources and published reviews would be a good place to look for this information. It should be cited and marked properly for possible bias.

The Works section is difficult to understand. Is the "Selected Bibliography" her published books? Perhaps re-titling the section would help it to read easier. Do you intend to write blurbs for her other works too or just for "Speak to Me Words"? If you just intend to do just this one, it makes the article seem unbalanced. You have a lot of good information here but I am not sure it is best utilized in this section.

Have you considered adding a section for "Major Themes" or something along those lines? You have a lot of good information in the Works section and the Poetry & Narrative Analysis section that could possibly be utilized more appropriately by re-organizing it to cover Gould's poetry as a whole instead of specific works.

The first sentence under "Grants & Scholarships" is just a touch oddly worded. Perhaps change it to "Janice Gould is recognized for her poetry and scholarship and therefore has a long list of awards"? This section can be bullet-pointed too to make it look neater.

For a final suggestion, you might consider adding an info box to your page. You can take the formatting from a different Wikipedia page. If you can find a picture of your author, that would be a great addition as well.

You have obviously put a lot of work into this page and it is looking great. Don't be afraid to list awards and books -- an encyclopedia page should have as much information as possible. This is a great start to your page. Jrowe925 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Opening: This section requires a few citations, especially for her personal hobbies

Biography: "In 2012 Janice completed a residency for Indigenous Writers at the School for Advanced Researchin [EDIT: THIS IS AN ERROR] Santa Fe, New Mexico."[2 This is listed as a quote but is there maybe a way that this line could be paraphrased?

Narrative Analysis: While this section seems helpful, I’m not sure if it’s appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. How many poems are included in all of her works? How are you selecting which poems to add? I suppose what I’m asking is how do you know where to stop or are you going to include it all.

Perhaps a better heading or way of organizing may be “Major Themes” or “Poetic Style”, and perhaps use a couple of poems and reviews for evidence? I believe this would be more appropriate if each of her books had their own page.

Works: “Speak to Me Words: Essays on Contemporary Indigenous Poetry is the only anthology of its kind. ” This is a great line and is something that could maybe be explored more under a heading like “Critical Reviews”.

“Indigenous literature should not be confused with post-colonial literature.” Be careful with this line as it reads more like an essay than a Wikipedia article. If this is something that is evident in her works and can be shown through citation (As I believe you allude in the next part “Speak to Me Words identifies Indigenous literature as its own genre”) This may be a great way to tie into a Major Themes section.

Career: I would list this as a heading rather than a subheading

Breid3491 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

KayElleKay Peer Review
The article is well organized. The lead is clear and gives needed information for people curious about Janice Gould

The poetry analysis has no citations. Whose ideas are these?

Is this too strongly worded? Regardless of its truth: Indigenous literature should not be confused with post-colonial literature.

The lead, biography and career are written in a clear and non-biased manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KayElleKay (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)