User talk:Chimericmacandcheese/sandbox

Okay. . let's put things in gear. "Evaluate an Article," practice editing, and some article candidates. You don't want to fall behind. ProfHanley (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft feedback
I see some progress here. But, I'm not sure the draft is ready for peer review - - most of the work appears to be focused on "Influences/Themes," but that section seems to still need some further writing/editing. Perhaps it would be good to include a work plan on this talk page - - that way I can see what your goals are and so better understand the draft's progress. ProfHanley (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback 4/8
It's tough to see what you're changing. Can you copy the whole original article - - piece by piece - - into your sandbox and then bold or italicize the new stuff you're adding? That will make it easier for me/peer reviewers to evaluate what you're doing. Also, use the correct wikipedia citation style. ProfHanley (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback 4/14
A few sentences would be considered "biased" for Wikipedia's standards, in particular the part about one of the more "shocking" works would be biased because it's more of an opinion and has value. --HLPickard — Preceding unsigned comment added by HLPickard (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
Guiding questions: •          Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, there is a slight change in the lead. •          Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is a concise introduction to the article’s topic. •          Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is article section with an info box. •          Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. •          Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, perhaps a bit more detail on book’s themes or questions it raises.

Content Guiding questions: •          Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. •          Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. •          Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No •          Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No to both questions. Tone and Balance Guiding questions: •          Is the content added neutral? Yes, it has it steady pace. •          Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? As mentioned by previous reviewer, avoiding subjective words would be ideal. •          Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it’s mostly well-rounded •          Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References Guiding questions: •          Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. •          Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes. •          Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. •          Are the sources current? Yes. •          Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No to both. •          Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) •          Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, to all. Organization

Guiding questions: •          Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? •          Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? •          Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media •          Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, 2 in total. •          Are images well-captioned? •          Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes •          Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. •          How can the content added be improved? Yes, it can use more content.

P.S.
Sorry about the format! I'm not familiar with Source Editing and Wikipedia won't allow me switch to visual editor :-(