User talk:Chaunguyenle/sandbox

Peer Revisions (Tray Donohue) Feedback RE: The Bluest Eye

Reception Section:

-Well written, good use of the formal tone.

-The second and third paragraph you have written could probably be condensed into one single longer paragraph as they both touch on the same subjects.

-Great use of signal phrases to present information, all while not taking any form of bias.

Black Girlhood Section: -Once again, very well written. -For sentences such as "Idols like Shirley Temple" addressing it with a citation or as a widely accepted opinion may increase credibility. -Great use of quoting -Analysis of Morrison's intent is well done and never comes off as making claims that aren't already clear from the text itself.

White Lifestyle Section: -The information added is good but the writing can at times imply a bias. -The use of more formal wording may stop this -Many of the statements such as "the lifestyle standards were not achievable..." well widely agreed upon, still frustratingly can't fully be considered a "fact" so it may be better to write the sentence presenting it more as a very agreed upon criticism of the books. -The use of more sources could significantly help.


 * Tray Donohue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdonohue18 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Revisions (Will O'Neill) - For your citations you should use footnotes instead of using the in text citations. I think almost all Wikipedia articles use footnotes. Also, you should try to cite after every time you use information from a source not just at the end of your contributions. - If the reception section of your article already has receptions that are not in favor of The Bluest Eye then I think the edits you made to that section are really good. If there aren't any receptions of that nature I think maybe you should try to have some more balanced coverage. - Overall I think your contributions are really good. They present very clear, relevant information.

Leta's Suggestions/ Peer Review
Does the writer employ concise, plain language? - Yes.

Are any sentences awkward or lengthy? Are there any weasel words? - No, nothing is awkward or lengthy, everything seems concise and clear.

What revisions or proofreading to individual sentences would you recommend? - Typo in Dick and Jane sentence : "although Morrison is presents a more"

Does each sentence convey a factual claim? - Yes, unless there is no evidence to show that the claim about Morrison's purpose is true, which I address below.

Is each sentence cited? One citation per statement is the minimum expectation. No original research should be included. - The sentence in the "Black Girlhood" section that discusses Morrison's purpose to address racism and mysogyny needs to be cited, as it should be something Morrison herself has quoted in the past in order to make it reliable information - Perhaps in the Dick and Jane section add citations for some of the sentences to keep consistency, like proof of the novel challenging existing attitudes.

Does each sentence attribute viewpoints to the people who hold them/the source? Does the writer need to add signal phrases? - Yes, good signal phrases used.

If writer has composed an entire paragraph, does it flow logically? Is anything unclear to you? - Everything flows well in good concise sentences and is easy to understand and interpret. - The last 2 sentences of the Dick and Jane section are a little awkward and don't seem to flow well together. Perhaps the order could be a adjusted to make the paragraph easier to follow? Other than that really good additions.

Do you need more information or clarifications to understand the drafted materials? - No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgiordano18 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)