User talk:Elissamoody/sandbox

Hello peer editors! I am still working on my citations (the formatting in the sandbox is confusing me), as well as adding more content into the section about the reception of the book (both positive and negative). I am also still debating on if I should add more content to the overview section or not. One thing I am also unsure about is if I should add more information about the author, or if I should leave it as is, because there is a separate wiki page on him that I added a link to. -Elissa

Sydnee's Peer Review
Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence?
 * Yes, it states what Angry White men is about and who the author is.

Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing?
 * I felt that the lead was strong and concise. It is filled with information that is discussed in further detail later in the article.

Is the information included in the summary also present in the body of the article? If not, what needs to be removed from the summary?
 * I believe so, because the article continues to talk about the overview and then reception by the public of the critique.

Are the topics well-organized and divided by headings and subheadings? Does the article cover the topic in organized, logical fashion? If not, how might the author consider revising the article to improve the organization?
 * I thought that the overall organization of the article was great. The topics were divided evenly and filled with information related to the topic. The information was also supported by facts and non-biased references.

Has the author added sections added to cover the topic more broadly and fill some existing gaps? If so, what are those additions? What else might be added?
 * I think Elissa made the article more concise and then supported her details with reputable references. She made the article less biased than before and also added new information about the critique being republished.

What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing?
 * She made the article come full circle with little details, which was very necessary. I did not see any grammatical or spacing errors. Every citation was referenced to a source as well. She noted that she is still working on adding more details to the reception, so I think once those are added each section will have equal amounts of information.

Is the coverage of the topic balanced? If not, what could the author add or change to make it seem more balanced?
 * The coverage is very balanced. The only section I would add more to is the "reception", but Elissa noted she is doing so.

Where does the author present information in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * I feel that is presented in a very neutral tone. Direct quotes are used, which also helps maintain neutrality.

Where might the author consider revising the essay to make the tone sound more like that of an encyclopedia and less like an argument?
 * I feel that it is a very neutral tone. I don't think there is anything she needs to change.

Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references?
 * Every direct quote is supported by an appropriate reference.

Are the sources cited the best available on the topic? Are they appropriate for the discipline/genre? If not, which sources might need to be changed? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, do they lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view?
 * I thought the sources sited were appropriate for this discussion. I thought using the reviews was very clever and helpful to me as a reader with no background information on this topic.

Do the references include completely filled out citation templates? If not, which ones need to be filled out?
 * Yes, they all look completely filled out and accurate to me.

Overall, really great job!! I really liked your "further reading" section and I personally don't think you should add more information on the author since he has his own wiki page (people can click the link if they want more). The book reviews were a great source and your overview was concise and just enough information for me to understand what the critique was about. I think your overview is good and no more information should be added! I agree on adding more the the reception portion and making sure that you remain neutral in this by showing both positive and negative. Awesome job!! Sydnee — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydneeG (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Megan's Peer Review
Lead:

Your lead is very good! It is short and to the point. I was able to understand what the book is about and basic facts about it from the start. It was very easy to understand and clearly defined.

Structure: Your structure was very precise and clear. You stayed on topic in each section and went into further detail about the book and what it entails.

Coverage: You covered a good amount of information and I can see kind of where you may have gotten stuck. I 'm having the same issue as to what sections could still be added to the article. You have a great broad explanation of the book and what it stems from. If you are looking to add any sections or information I think it may be beneficial to skim through some of the book so you can write more specifically about the themes that arise. Otherwise, I think you did an amazing job of sharing what the book is about and how it has been reviewed and critiqued.

Neutrality: I think you did a great job of keeping it neutral. Although it may be hard with a topic like this you made it very clear when you were referencing somebody else's opinion or review. Great Job!

Sources: It seems like you've done a pretty good job of finding reliable sources with good information. Your citations seem to be correct and I'm excited to see what you have to add.

Overall, you are doing an amazing job, Elissa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeganAnnMcSweeney (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)