User talk:Engl101thurston

1) Did your partner follow the format guidelines for a Wikipedia article (contains a lead and a reference list, the right things are bolded, section headings are correct, etc.)? If not, what needs to be altered to make it look like a Wikipedia article? yes, the format is that of a wikipedia article with a short lead. I dont know if I would put that first section in the lead part? But that is just my opinion. It just looks and sounds out of place not under a broader heading and if you think it should have its own heading i suggest to make it one. The refrences are good and it looks like you have links to other pages as well which is nice.

2) Is the article well-written? (“its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard”) Select one sentence that you consider to be well-written. Also select at least one sentence where the writing could be clarified or polished up to make the article more interesting and informative.

Well-written: I love the section about music I think it is really well researched and well written, but I would reword this sentence "The score for the play is all songs performed by the British rock band Radiohead" The score of the play incorporates all songs? or...?I also love the section on choreo "Common movements include the arching of the torso, the bending of the wrists paired with elbow motions, and stabbing motions of the feet and legs" because it gives a nice specific touch on the whole article emphasizing the professionalism and the movements which is what ballet is all about.

Needs work: "The scenes and structure of the ballet do not match the original play" I would add add the title of the play and what original entails (mention Shakespeare) because that sentence on its own is very vague and because it is the first sentence in that section it needs to be stronger and more specific.

3) Is the article comprehensive? (“it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context”) List one section of the article you find to be very comprehensive. Also list one section of the article that needs to be expanded or contextualized better to make the article more complete and persuasive.

Comprehensive: The article is very comprehensive as a whole!

Needs work:I think a lot of the sentences are choppy and could use more flow even though it is a wiki article, transitions should still be used. I also mentioned some sentences I thought needed re-wording before, so just keep a look out for sentences a like to fix as well.

4) Is the article well-researched? (“it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature”) If the sources listed are from websites, follow the links. List each website and include whether you find it to be credible or not.

Websites: hehe ask our good friend nate (or look up) how to cite the same source in different spots. But all in all your sources (for this topic) seem to be credible!

5) Is the article neutral? (“it presents views fairly and without bias”) Does it fulfill the Wikipedia ideal of Neutral Point of View (NPOV)? Include any sentences that appear to be biased.

Biased sentences:

6) Is the article of the correct length? (“It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail”) Does it meet the minimum length requirement for the class of 2 pages of text double spaced?