User talk:Cgracethompson/sandbox

Ruby's peer feedback
Camille, I think that you have a lot of great information that is definitely neutral! I can see how not having a hard copy of the work would make it difficult to write about specific topics, but I think that you make up for that in your "History" section. That seems to be the bulk of information, and sets you up well for the following two sections.

I think that your lead section does a great job of summarizing what you will be talking about in the rest of the article. It summarizes the controversy well! I also really like how you broke up the "History" section into each year. It made it easy to read and organize my thoughts about the subject.

I think that overall, you do a great job staying neutral throughout each section. I think that there could possibly be more added to the legacy section, maybe about the global outreach of the Bluestocking group/movement. Im not sure what information all is out there, but if possible I think that it would add to the overall significance of how the movement had to do with early feminism, etc! Along with that, just adding in some of the citations, but you mentioned you knew you had to figure that part out!

Let me know if you have any questions!! Overall, great job.

Eli's peer review
Camille, you did a great job expanding this article. I picked a magazine as well and know how hard obscure publications like this can be to research. You made up for not having a tremendous amount of sources which was well done.

The history section was great. I would continue looking for sources as one or two more might be beneficial. You did well on expanding however I would be careful as to what was written without a reference for every claim. For example the sentence that ends with "...who rather made an answer to Nietzsche's assertion about the inferiority of women" could use a statement to back up that they magazine really did not intend to make a reference to a goddess but rather to Nietzsche's assertion.

In the controversy section you did a great job staying neutral but giving opposing examples of exactly how controversial the publication was. If at all possible I would look up the specific big events that made it a controversy and see if you can find media coverage on it. Some coverage at least, if there is not any because of how controversial/obscure it was then use that to emphasize how unnoticed it has gone. Last bit for this section, the sentence that ends "...“injurious to public morals.”" should have a reference as well since its a direct qoute, even if its a tiny reference to a single sentence in a tiny interview.

If you have any questions let me know! Best Wishes, Eli Rangel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli-Rangel (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Kataryna's Peer Review
This was a really versatile article! Really great job!

Lead: I think the lead was clear and to the point! It gave credit to everyone who contributed, motive for the article, and implications of it. Loved it, super simple but great.

Article: So I wasn’t expecting the history part but I totally understand needing extra research and background to fill out your article. That part was really thorough and it wasn’t “required” so the fact that you included it shows that you put a lot of work into this article. The controversy section was great as well and I think you stuck strictly to facts which of course was great. I think this section could’ve been broken up slightly into subsections because it is pretty long, but that’s up to you!

References: For the see also part, and I should do this too, but add a little description of what the link is to and why the reader should also read it. Half of our references seem to be right, but not the other half so definitely need to figure that out together!

Overall: I really enjoyed it, it wasn’t a topic I had ever heard of/known about prior. And with free speech such an integral part of our country, the thought of a single magazine having that large of an impact holds great magnitude. So good!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.lewyckyj (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)