User talk:BenjMill907/sandbox

Peer Review: Your plan seems solid. There was a problem with your last source, I couldn't get to it. Maybe there is another place to get that? Looking at the article, the linguistics portion seems to end abruptly. I'm not sure if you can add more information to it or just change the tone to make it sound more complete. Overall, looks like you have a good start. Vericima (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Erika's Peer Review: Hey guys! This is what I think! So, y'all have said that your focus is going to be on 1. inserting in-line citations, and 2. Expanding the content somewhat. I think you're right that both are necessary. Beyond that, though, there's not too much to go on based on what you've said, so I can at least tell you the issues I see with the article. First, is there more that you could say in the lead section? I know Dr. Bowie said there were specific rules about what can be put in there for biographical articles, but it seems woefully bare-bones to me right now, so maybe you could say something brief about what kind of work his theology and linguistics work was? Second, the structure seems fine right now, but depending on what you find in your research, you could introduce some sort of internal structure under the theology and linguistics headings for different works or subjects they worked on? That may depend, though, on how much content you find, whether or not that will make sense for you to do. Third, you mentioned explicitly that while you are working on a biographical page, you have no interest in expanding the content about his theological work. Why is that? I understand that this is a linguistics class, so understandably the focus should be placed on his linguistic contributions, but you also run the risk of making the article unbalanced if you develop one section and not the other. So, if you are reading texts about him anyways, and come across such information, maybe considering adding or editing something? Fourth, I see that there aren't in-line citations yet, and I know that you're working on that, but you've only relisted the existing sources so far. Have you found anything else yet? If so, does it focus on his linguistic work and therefore support that you should give more space to that in the article? Or is it fairly broad in terms of biographical content? Fifth, something that I hadn't seen mentioned before, is the grammatical and stylistic content of the article. Frankly, I found the existing language rather hard to read and full of run-on sentences (especially extra commas). Has your group put any thought into how you will go about editing this language to make more sense or read more fluidly? I think that's about it from me! Good luck, and let me know if you'd like any clarification! Epcoker (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Makayla's Peer Review
Makayla’s Peer Review: Hey! I think your plan to expand and more properly cite this article is a good, solid plan. Adding cites from existing sources and other sources found from the Consortium Library databases will definitely add to the credibility of this article. However, I think it’s necessary to establish what you’re expanding as far as your plans for expansion in this article; for example, you mention you plan on expanding his linguistic contributions but specifically not his theological contributions. I think that may be flawed; his theological contributions may have some connection to his linguistic contributions, maybe do some research to see if there’s a link? Also, I read the article and it mentions a study he published, you could do more work regarding the study to establish what it did rather than just listing what he did (which is what the article currently does). This would maintain a formal educational style as well as making it less bland. Of course, an expansion like you mentioned would also make this less of a few-sentences bland explanation of Jonathan Edwards and more of an intimate view into what he actually contributed, and make it more readable for educational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfnewman2 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hannah's Peer Review
Hey guys! It looks like you have a pretty straightforward plan, and it's good that you already have a few sources to work with. This looks like a very interesting subject to work with. I agree that expansion is important for this article. You mentioned that you are specifically concerned with in text citations, which is quite important, but I think you might also add the creation of an introduction for the article of some kind to the top of your priorities as well. One of the main points of confusion in the article is that there is no basic definition of Jonathan Edwards for the following headings to build off of or expand, so writing a good lead will probably give this article substantially more credibility. It doesn't look like you're planning to change the organization of the sections of this article, which makes your job easier. The sections are quite logical as they are, so not having to mess with them will give you the chance to really build on the biographical and linguistic portions of the article. Currently the language of the article is fairly neutral; there is no obvious bias exhibited here. If you continue to write in the same vein during editing I think you will be able to maintain this neutrality well. Your sources look pretty good at the moment; I assume the list will be growing since the sources you list are those in the original article. It's excellent that you're going to use some of Edward's own work as references. It also isn't terribly clear how all of your group members are contributing, so you probably want to figure that out just so that the work doesn't end up falling to one or two individuals. Altogether a good start though. Hannahc2018 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)