User talk:Emmanhudson99/sandbox

Peer Review Feedback
Hey Emma!

Me and Griffyn were talking about the same thing that day; you somehow didn't realize that the review didn't get posted. It happened to me too, so I had to post it the second time. But I had a backup, so didn't have any trouble with it.

Nonetheless, thanks for the review. I see that you've checked the main article as well as my draft and found out some issues regarding it. So, let's focus on those :

# 1 I think you, in some way, missed the content box in the draft; its right at the top after the article evaluation in the draft. I have labelled the chapter 'The Great Drought' as part 1, then the subchapter 'Victoria's Ghost' as 1.1, and the subsections of the subchapter as 1.1.1/1.1.2 and so on. I haven't touched on the other chapters or sub chapters, maybe that was the reason you got confused. But I'll be updating the Content Bar soon.

# 2 Moving on, I do agree that the section 'Temple wage' is lengthier compared to the other sections, but I really had a tough time cutting on the information, as this section had a lot of important issues to touch on and if you read it carefully it's long but it makes sense. The section in the book itself was very long, but I tried to include the most staggering descriptions. But I will, however, try to cut down on some things. # 3Now one thing I personally think when it comes to historical political books is that you do come across reviews on the book that try to talk about the topic in a whole, touching on the very indispensable parts without which the review wouldn't be about the book. But, what gets lost in the middle is the very fundamental research and statistics that made the book what it is. You can find the review on Temple wage on a general basis or what it is, but you might not find how people at that time prefered to be jailed rather than to stay free just for getting an extra loaf of bread. Then again you have the book for it but rarely do people even go through the hassle to find something like this. Summaries exclude information to cover the grounds on a general understanding, but, truth be told, I really think I am not doing a summary here. The more I read from the book the more I realize that these pieces of information should be made public for people to see the massacre done during that time which often gets successfully buried under the one thesis statement of the topic. It becomes very easy to click on the links for reviews but it gets even harder to go through the book itself. But I do realize the legitimacy of the concerns you've raised, and I'll try to extract and condense information as much as I can for the general audience. And thank you again for drawing attention to these issues. I really appreciate it, and best of luck with your one. Hope to meet you in person very soon.Ikaarin (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)ikaarin