User talk:Casey1279/sandbox

User talk:Casey1279/sandbox

Hey Natalie and Heath, does this work in the talk page to discuss our edits for the group assignment? (Casey1279 (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)).

Hey did this work better? Casey1279 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)]]

Bradley's Peer Review
Casey, I read your edits, both alone and in the context of the group sandbox, and I think you did a great job! Considering what Natalie told me about your article before your group got started and how there was little to no content originally, that is a tremendous challenge to work with as you're essentially drafting an all-new article.

As far as what your edits did well, they go hand in hand: - Your content is, for the most part, well-written and easy to understand. In a topic which can tend to go over some peoples' heads, it is important to keep content easy to read, concise, and free flowing, while still delivering correct information to the readers. Your edits do a good job of breaking down what Qur'anic Hermeneutics are, how hermeneutics relates to tafsir, and the issues hermeneutics must address in the modern world. I also like that you added examples of hermeneutic dissection from hadiths. In addition, the structure of content, and amount of content added, is well done. Considering how small the article was when you began, you've had a blank slate to work with. As stated earlier, the content you added is well-written and easy to understand. However, the amount of content is not insignificant. You've added a substantial amount of content, comprised of new sections and revisions of what little was there. In addition, the content appears to be well-structured and organized. - I also like how you included links to related articles, such as contextualism. This helps establish context for the readers.

In terms of what your edits can do better: - There are slight punctuation errors, such as in the section titled, "Considerations for Interpretation," there is a comma missing at "Generally speaking". There are also two periods in the sentence above "Generally speaking". - There are some instances where mentions of authors are used a little too liberally. It's useful in short bursts, but multiple uses per paragraph can be overkill. Citations can achieve the same result while not interrupting the content. It's a minor gripe, but it seems to make your content "blocky" rather than free-flowing. However, this may be more for your future reference when citing. If you need clarification, I can show you in person Tuesday. It's an observation that may come off the wrong way via text.

I can't directly review your sources without links or the books in front of me, but from preliminary glances from the citations you have, they appear to be neutral and are from credible sources, like Oxford University Press.

As it pertains to the rubric: New Sections- Excellent. Content does a good job explaining the topic.

Reorganization- Fair. Asides from the "blocky" presentation mentioned earlier, the content is arranged logically. The blocky nature is easily remedied and once this is done, it should become apparent that the structure you've arranged the content in will prove conducive to a free-flowing, articulate article. Although this is marked fair, this is only from a minor gripe that will easily be upgraded to "excellent" once it is addressed.

Smaller additions- Excellent. Comparing your additions to the sections before they were made shows that your additions are improvements. There have been revisions such as clarifying sentences and adding links. This is a hard topic to grade as, for the most part, there was not much in the way of "small" revisions you can actually make without making smaller additions to sections you added earlier.

References/Citations- Excellent. Most sources, as mentioned earlier (constraints with my abilities to review them notwithstanding) are good on the surface. I don't see any major red flags that would draw concerns to them.

'''Overall grade: A. What issues I found are minor gripes that are easily remedied in potentially five to ten minutes and will make a good article even better. It's clear that you have done your homework on the topic and you're presenting the content in an intelligent, intelligible, and efficient fashion.'''

That's all I have for now as it pertains to peer review. If I find anything else of note, I will drop those comments here, even if we speak about them in person, so Dr. Michael can have proof of our continued dialogue.

P.S. I will gladly show you and Natalie how to make these citations. If possible, have your sources handy Tuesday before class. Regards, Brad Bradgaskin98 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

JM's Peer Review
Two comments on what your individual changes do well:

The reorganization of the entry in your sandbox is helpful, and makes the entry easier to read.

New sections fill in key content gaps (but these need to be improved; see below).

Two comments on what needs improvement:

The presentation of your individual edits is confusing, and I'm not sure where to look on your sandbox for the most revised sections. Therefore some of my comments here might apply to others in your group.

Comments on "Human Rights" section: This needs discussion of (at least) the human-rights interpreters that we are reading for this week, including Sayyid Qutb and Farid Esack. Explain what you mean by Saeed's "contextualist" approach. What does it entail? How is it similar and also different from other modes of interpretation?

Comments on "Specific Issues in Islamic Hermeneutics" section: Make it clear to the reader why you are providing direct quotes (in each part of that section, but especially in "Considerations for Interpretation").

Comments on "Examples of Hermeneutic Dissection": What is the purpose of this section? What is it about Wadud's model that stands out to you, and warrants this new section? I think you just need to insert sentences that tell us what Wadud is doing in terms of interpreting the Arabic language (which you then show with quotes from her book). Same goes for the sections from Al-Tabari.

Preliminary grade: B/C Jaclyn-Michael (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)