User talk:Dmakeever/sandbox

Hello! Please feel free to communicate here in regards to any tips, tricks, or advice you might have! Dmakeever (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Derek

Article analysis
Derek, doing an analysis of the page (esp. one as developed as the Tuesdays w/Morie) will really help to guide your editing plan. Profhanley (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Professor! I am definitely going to be posting a page analysis! Dmakeever (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Derek

Under the section entitled "Important Figures", I would advise changing the last sentence from "his impact is still felt today" to "his impact is still noticed today" as feeling can be a subjective term, whereas noticing something is less subjective and it tend not to elicit an emotional response. Joakes02 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)joakes02

Heather's peer review
Lead:

"The book topped the New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers of 2000. However, according to Amazon,[2] this title is listed under fiction, biographical fiction, philosophical fiction, and memoir." -- Quick question, why is it listed under fiction when it's being sold as a non-fiction?

Important Figures: Need to paraphrase your sources (reword) rather than directly quote

Themes:

"This transformation experienced through Morrie's degenerating prognosis, as the once unfamiliar becomes familiar." This sentence needs the word "is" stuck in there ("this transformation is experienced . . .") Also, I'm a little confused over the sentence. Specifically, I'm confused over "the once unfamiliar becomes familiar." What exactly is this referring to? What is the unfamiliar? What's becoming familiar? Maybe I'm just missing something.

"This leads to Mitch observing this process, understanding that Morrie is less a dying man and instead, a beacon of human dignity in the presence of death." Really nice sentence!!

Adaptations: "Co-authored by Mitch Albom and Jeffrey Hatcher (Three Viewings) and directed by David Esbjornson (The Goat or Who Is Sylvia?)." Sentence fragment.

"Tuesdays with Morrie starred Alvin Epstein as Morrie and Jon Tenney as Mitch; it met with positive reviews." Maybe a citation for the fact that it met with positive reviews?

Overall it looks good!! Digitalhumanitiestudent1 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhea's peer review
Nice start. Your article has a clear, organized structure that conveys the information well. I specifically like your Important Figures section, it emphasizes the significance of those two characters and the relationship they share with each other. Although in that particular section I would suggest switching the first two sentences in the first paragraph. Right now, you have “Mitch Albom, a newspaper sports columnist, struggles with a mid-life crisis. Mitch Albom is the author of Tuesdays With Morrie and one of the two main characters.” Instead, I would say something along the lines of, “Mitch Albom, the author of Tuesdays With Morrie and one of the two main characters, is a newspaper sports columnist, struggling with a mid-life crisis.” I also agree with Heather, paraphrase rather than use direct quotes. Other than a few minor grammatical issues, I think you’ve done well with adding more content to this article. --Rheasegismundo (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW ASSIGNMENT: DIGITAL HUMANITIES

The article nailed the synopsis, it’s really good. When I finished reading it I was damn near about to drive to Barnes and buy the book. I also just really appreciate the structure of it all; every paragraph is about a single topic and all the sentences are well put together and condensed. Its simple and does not over analyze the book yet gives a perfectly adequate amount of information, I’m about that, I like it, I like it a lot. This might be a lil’ too much but I think it would be dope if you could add like a criticism section. You can write about what other people have said about that book, and how it has been received/reviewed in the world of literature. These changes would be an improvement because it would help place the book into the real world and give the reader of this article an opportunity to see what others have said about the book. The article is really cool, but there is just one thing I noticed that might not fly with the people of Wikipedia. In the synopsis section there are no in-text citations. I am not sure if all of that information came from your third citation, the amazon one, but if it did you might want to consider reciting it a couple more times in that section. Other than that, your article is solid! The cleanliness and organizational structure of this page is definitely something that I could apply to my own article. The clarity of the paragraphs and sentences that this article has, I feel lack in my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlinagtz (talk • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmakeever (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!