User talk:Ecarpe3/sandbox

Article Evaluations
A Rose for Emily: -Remove "And" from the second sentence. -Inconsistent with the form of "Rose" (sometimes in quotes and caps, sometimes just rose. -Maybe worth listing Emily's Father as a character to acknowledge his effect on her.

Overall, article is not super well-written. There are many missed important parts, and the author tends to focus on areas that are not as prominent. There is very little mention of Emily's father, and there is no mention of what happens to Homer, and how/why Emily does it. Lastly, this article simply just has confusing and awkward word choice at times.

Parker's Back: -Article is written with a biased tone, it is the author's opinion and perspective. -Might benefit from a "Characters" section.

Overall this article is not informational on the actual story itself. It portrays a very religious theme-focused view, which, while relevent and interesting, is not a straight forward summary. Instead it is essentially just the interpretation of "Parker's Back" according to the author of the article, and appears to be more of an analysis.Ecarpe3 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)