User talk:Chase Jablon/New sandbox

Olivia's Evaluation
You did a great job at touching on a lot of different sections in your edits. Your article is definitely lacking a lot of critical sections so I think it was smart to create all these sections and add a few sentences of content in each to get them going. Your background section flows well and all your additions include information relevant to the section. Make sure to cite each sentence even if they all come from the same source. Your genre and style section is also well done, but cite the sentence where you declare that The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas fits into the Holocaust fiction genre to make it clear that it's not your original opinion. The 'In a Broader Context' subsection is very interesting but it is not directly relevant to the novel -- are you sure it belongs in your article? Your analysis section is off to a good start and includes relevant information, but some of the sentences in it are confusing and wordy -- mainly those in the paragraph about Sophie Melissa Smith's criticism of the novel. Your 'In Other Media' section is also off to a good start, but every sentence needs to be cited. You consistently use signal phrases -- good job -- and overall your edits are off to a good start!

Oliviab219 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Isabelle's Evaluation:
You make some really crucial additions. You cite most of your claims, which aligns with Wikipedia guidelines and prevents the tone from sounding like original research though some are still in need of a reference. Additionally, I think that you do a great job of writing in a neutral and unbiased tone. Your claims do not sound like speculation or persuasion. The information about the book's background is fascinating, and I think is really important to know when reading this story. Perhaps you could fill out some of the claims you make and go into a bit more depth with an additional sentence or two. For example, I think it could be helpful to the reader to expand on your first and last sentences in the background section. To me, you could have two short paragraphs by just adding to more sentences in these instances to fully explain the claims. Once you introduce the conception of the idea, it seems a bit abrupt to leave it at just one sentence. It also might be helpful to organize your analysis section by adding sub-sections that describe the book's themes. I find that this allows the reader to follow clearly the ideas you are trying to express. Overall, I think you have added some really interesting and important information. Going through to refine your sentences for clarity and concision could be beneficial, but you have really strong and well-supported additions.

Response to reviews
a) From my peer reviews, I received feedback that included checking to make sure I have citations, adding more text in paragraphs to make the page flow better, as well as adding to the analysis section by content and organization. Additionally, my reviewers from both peer review and the wikipedian stated that they are unsure if a holocaust literature section belongs in this article. The background section was widely appreciated, but one reviewer stated that they had hoped I would expand on it.

b) I will try to create a more flowing-background but cannot add more details due to the limit of available literature. I think that the holocaust literature is still relevant (shown in broader context), especially the part talking about it needing to be written in a "cautionary tale" manner, which related to the setup of Boyne's book being a fable. This area of the page cannot be in a stand-alone article as it is only presented in relation to a holocaust novel. Additionally there is not enough content to create sections in the Analysis for various themes as Isabelle suggested. I will be doing proof-reading when I am finished in order to buff-out the rough parts.