User talk:Chuckpresby/sandbox

The Exit Through the Gift Shop page looks pretty good. . .what needs improvement? ProfHanley (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Jessica's Peer Review
Five elements of a Wikipedia article: A lead section that is easy to understand A clear structure Balanced coverage Neutral content Reliable sources

Ask yourself: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? > I understand that you are still working on your draft so I'm going to give some suggestions on the original wiki's page, and maybe how you could possibly update it.
 * Lead

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Is the article clearly written? > I think your plan to add to a "themes" section would be a nice addition! I do also agree that you could add to the "production" and "review" section. The talk page of the wiki page says there needs to be some improvement to the "Hoax" section and the "Copyright" section, maybe you could chime in there as well?
 * Structure


 * Balance/Neutrality

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. > There are so spelling and grammatical errors on the wiki page so I'm sure you could fix those up easily. I think both your sandbox and the wiki page sound neutral, which is good!


 * Sourcing

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Are sources properly cited? > Some of the links are out of date on the wiki page. Just as an example, the IFC citation doesn't link to the correct page. Some links are from 2019, which means they aren't too out of date though so that's good. I would double-check the citations if you are able to.

Peer review format: First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? > I think the wiki page's lead is great. They do a great job of introducing the article. Your blueprint has a good sense of structure and great additions that I'm sure would help improve the wiki page.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? > I think the article could use more information together. Each section is very tiny and I think more could be added. Like I said earlier, in terms of your draft, I think you have a good foundation, now you need to just start drafting.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! > I think having a "themes" section is a great idea that I could also incorporate into my article.

Jessica Tovar 02:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toveezy (talk • contribs)

Daisy's Peer Review Since you're still working on your draft I will give feedback on your work plan! 1. I think it's a good idea to add a theme section. I think it will be a good addition to provide information on the themes the movie touches upon. I also like your idea of giving a differing review than the positive ones it has now. Definitely helpful for readers to have something on both the positive and negative aspects of the film. 2. I don't know if I'd change anything, your plan sounds pretty good. Maybe just putting your draft in your sandbox when you can :) Also, be sure to back up your negative comments about the film. Like just make sure you justify your critiques well, that's all. 3. One thing you can do to improve the article is starting to upload it so you can get good peer review. Its always good to have a second opinion, and could help a lot with improvements. 4. One thing I can use from this article in mine is the negative comments. I'm writing about a food item so I could incorporate positive/negative reviews about it to give off a solid neutral stance. Daiisyy (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)