User talk:Gdalrymp/sandbox

Claire's peer review
Your article carefully details a lot of interesting information. I like that in the "Reception" section, you detail the movement from enthusiasm for a travel diary to a serious focus on morality.

I think that the main change needed in your work is about specificity and length. Simply looking at the page shows that you spend too much page space talking about comic misanthropy, and upon further inspection, the body of your text is more centered around nuanced differences in critical thought surrounding comic misanthropy rather than comic misanthropy itself. I would suggest that you focus on what critics agree on, and the general use of comic misanthropy in the plot, to show the general trend of criticism. I think it is most important to define Comic misanthropy and show how it is seen in the text. Maybe you could start with "this is misanthropy in the text" and then "here is how it is comic". I would also like for there to be less overt mention of critics, as while it is not your own voice that is not neutral, you are presenting arguments rather than stating facts. By putting your critics in the footnotes, you can be making sure that you are presenting as much neutral information as possible.

A similar point goes towards your reception section. It is important to display arguments here, because that is what reception is, but beware of being too specific. Your comments on general trends are great, but you use many quotes which seem to undercut the feeling of it being general. Reading this draft convinced me to take a second look at my own quotes and to make sure that I wasn't presenting too many arguments.

Jessica's Peer Review
Hello, I think that you guys have a great start to your article. I think that the scholarship you use is reputable and that the content you are adding to the article will make it more robust. I also think that you include a lot of information on Gulliver's travels that would be helpful for the wiki reader and you use language that makes the article more formal than a blog post, but less rigid than an academic article. In terms of changes, I spotted a few things that I think could help the article become even better: Overall, it seemed like a very well planned out article and I think if you check that page I (hopefully) linked you to, you would be set! JClanton12 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The tone of the article is more like an essay. You use a lot of "Crane says..." kind of language, and I think that takes away from the content. On one of the Wikipedia pages about writing, it said something that I really liked which was "Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves." (WP:OFFTOPIC) I think if you used more language like "Gulliver is interpreted as..." then it also becomes more like the language used in an encyclopedia as well. Encyclopedias don't typically go into an analysis of critical reception between two authors. Rather, they put the sides out there for the reader to interpret.
 * The second section on reception contains a lot of what Wikipedia calls "peacock terms and weasel words", which are words like "very" or "mostly". Again, take a look at the section labeled peacock terms and weasel words in the WP:OFFTOPIC page and try to limit or eradicate those in your own entry.
 * The comic misanthropy section was also kinda hard to follow, I think cleaning it up would be very helpful for the reader, whether that be through subsections/headings or through moving some content to another section entirely. I think there is info that isn't directly relevant that can be taken out.
 * The Comic Misanthropy section heavily uses the first three sources, I think maybe cutting down the section will make it look less like a debate and more like an encyclopedia entry.

Glitch
When I try to remove multiple extra spaces in between paragraphs, the change does not work for both spacing removals, but rather one only or none at all.

-AshMillette (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)