User talk:Dgoydan21/Article 2 sandbox

Peer Review of Ottoman coffeehouse
The angle being taken on Ottoman coffeehouses is interesting; I think the sections that have been written address a very important aspect of coffeehouses that was neglected in the original article. I am curious as to where in the article the written sections are going to be included, and how they will flow with the rest of the article. The influence of Ottoman coffeehouses on European coffeehouses is mentioned repeatedly throughout the page - are you planning on comparing the role that coffeehouses played in information transfer in the Ottoman Empire and in Europe? I would suggest altering parts of the new sections stylistically, as some of the language feels a bit too literary and perhaps not encyclopedic enough. For instance, I don't think the opening sentence "Ottoman era coffeehouses democratized knowledge across society, whether the information was on news, political discourse, or everyday gossip." is necessary; this fact is adequately represented in the evidence provided in this section. Similarly, referring to the gossip that took place in coffeehouses as "chatter" feels a bit unspecific, and I don't think it's necessary to include "To be sure" in the sentence "To be sure, the bourgeoisie attended the coffeehouses as well to prove their enlightenment to elites through academic discourse." I was curious to know more about the spies sent to coffeehouses. Why were they sent - by whom, and why at this particular time (the mid-19th century)? I was also wondering if you are planning on expanding the spy section with a greater variety of sources, which might ensure a balanced review of the topic. Prgopalan (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ann's Peer Review of Ottoman Coffeehouses
'''A lead section that is easy to understand Your addition does not contain a lead section, so you're all good on this front.

'''A clear structure Since you only have two sections, the more relevant concern is the internal structure of each sentence. I think you achieve a clear structure in each section by using concise topic sentences which crisply state the point you will make. One change I think you could make would be to re-title the second section as simply "Surveillance in Istanbul coffeehouses." This would closely represent the content of that section.

'''Balanced coverage Within the two sections you've written, I think you do a good job of balancing the "pros" and "cons" of coffeehouses, or of going to coffeehouses. You capture that, on one hand, coffeehouses allowed information to flow freely by providing a space where people from all strata of society could gather, but on the other hand, they served as loci for effective surveillance by the government, thereby allowing information to amalgamate within tightly closed government ranks. These two sections are of approximately equal length, which is a good thing--you're not privileging either side of the narrative. You don't try to convince the reader of any one conclusion about coffeehouses; on the contrary, you remind the reader that the government wasn't necessarily malicious, debunking an assumption many might make that "surveillance=bad."

'''Neutral content I think your tone is appropriately neutral throughout, with the possible exception of your use of the word "interestingly" in the second section. I think this word introduces your POV into the article in a way that is unideal. Other than that, you never attribute statements to unknown groups of people or try to paint the topic at hand in an explicitly positive/negative light.

'''Reliable sources Your citation frequency is very strong-- most sentences have a citation following them. You also have almost all academic sources, which is good. No concerns in this regard.

I like your choice of topic, and the way you've presented it! Your work is also very well organized, which was helpful as a peer editor. --Afgmcdonald (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review of Ottoman coffeehouse, Will Shine
'''Structure: I think the structure of the article, as it is with the two editions from this sandbox, is effective. Breaking the article in sections that have clearly defined subjects and provide specific evidence in citations is very helpful for contextualizing and presenting the information. However, I think it could be helpful to describe the coffeehouse as a place more generally in the heading or near the start of the article, even if just a sentence. I imagine that every Ottoman coffeehouse was likely distinct in key ways from every other and that there may not have been a ‘typical’ coffeehouse, but I think adding a sentence that describes the democratic nature of exchange that is mentioned later and possibly something about the groups of people that frequented them could be quite helpful earlier in the article. At the moment it feels like a rather abrupt transition into temperance and protestantism from the topic sentence at the start (although from my understanding these are not sections you wrote so this may not be the angle from which you are trying to improve the article and in that case can ignore this). I feel the structure of the sections you did write do a good job of presenting the information in a clear manner. The division between information exchange and information gathering (such as spying) helps to illuminate the different ends to which people used coffeehouses and seems to effectively compartmentalize the sources chosen for each section. This division rather clearly illuminates the differences between the types of exchange happening in coffeehouses and does so without having to argue why such differences exist. I think this is beneficial to the encyclopedic nature of the project.

'''Content: The first thing I would like to comment on is the use of sources. Although the sections are short they are excellently cited. 10 sources for the amount of information present makes it so that almost each sentence is drawing information from a unique source. Thus, each sentence carries with it a powerful summarization that serves the encyclopedic aim of the site very well. As mentioned in the structure section above, I also think that the way the content is divided helps to make the information flow in a clear and concise way. Although I think the article could benefit from a bit more context for what the Ottoman Coffeehouses were (and the order of the sections could possibly be rearranged), I think there is a good spread of coverage on the topic. It does not seem like there are any blatant gaps and I’m sure through expanding on the topics the article will have a more complete presentation of coffeehouses. I think the tone of the article remains neutral and I could not find any strong value judgements. Even in places where information from a few preceding facts is drawn together (such as the statement “This mixed attendance brought an academic spirit to the establishments, allowing any coffeehouse attendee the opportunity to attend what John Houghton called a "penny university," a nearly free education”) I do not feel like the article loses its focus as a neutral summarization. Also evident in the prior statement is the direct reference to a source, in this case the author of the citation used to support the information. I think at one point in my own article I make reference to historians in a vague way to support the information I provided, but this is done in a much clearer way that helps eliminate potential bias by directly referencing the person from whom the information came. Again, this is further helped by the wide range of sources.

'''General: I think the biggest changes to this article will simply come from fleshing out the material a bit more. There are already a lot of great sources and it seems the article will just need a bit more information in a few places. I think the divisions you are working with right now are really good and help keep the information flow clear. I think your second section is a really good way to put info control content on wiki in a place many people wouldn’t immediately think to look for it. By effective summarization of a wide array of sources I feel you manage to link some very interesting information in an informative way. My biggest suggestion for the article in general will be to just put up a bit more content and possibly adjust the intro to reflect your additions if you feel comfortable doing it. I feel reading your article was very helpful for my own wiki work and I will try to go back myself and edit some of my more vague phrasing in a way that reflects your own work. I think being more direct with where my information came from and diversifying my sources in the way you did could help my article a lot. Willshinexc (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)willshinexc