User talk:Gkhaner/sandbox

Hi Grace, it's me Palmer, here to review your first draft. Overall, I think you did a really good job identifying content gaps and filling them thoroughly with well-sourced, relevant information. This is particularly true of the context section which I found very interesting and, despite not having seen the play, made me feel like I had a deeper understanding of what makes the play important. Because it is currently my job to be as critical as possible, I will say I was a bit confused by the last sentence of the Kavanaugh section, "Schreck notes that the percentage of votes in favor of abolishing the constitution during the Kavanaugh hearings rose dramatically during the time of his trial." Particularly, "during the Kavanaugh hearings rose dramatically during the time of his trial." Is this repetitive? Or is the suggestion that people wanted to abolish the constitution for the duration of his hearings? If there is any more information to add to the immigration section, that might also be good, but it doesn't seem vital. You also use the word "discuss" a lot in this section at the beginning:

"Schreck discusses multiple facets of the Constitution throughout the play, but a discussion of the Ninth Amendment—which Schreck refers to as the “penumbra” of the Constitution—is central to the show.[3] She also includes a deep dive into the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, a section that discusses citizenship rights and what it means to be "American".[4] Over the course of the play, Schreck discusses themes of sexual assault, domestic abuse, and immigration as they relate to the women in her family and to herself.[5] Schreck discusses"

Anyways, I think your changes to the productions section are all warranted and helpful. Similarly, the creation section gives a lot of good insight into the author's creative process. This information is written concisely and I think is incredibly valuable, particularly because of its relatively short nature. It's easy to read but conveys all the important information.

I was also wondering if you were considering making changes to the lead section which is currently only two short sentences. You certainly are making enough changes on your own, but the lead section is certainly lacking.

Poph55 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Poph55

Jack Longarzo
Hi Grace, great job thus far. Your edits are all very well written and fill an obvious gap in the article's content. I think the overview section is much stronger and more informative with your edits. I also liked how you moved the "Overview" section above the "Production" section as this change more closely abides by Wikipedia's guidelines and simply makes the article more logical. While brief, your edits to the "Production" section make it much more detailed and accurate. The addition of the "Creation" section serves a very powerful purpose and does an excellent job of integrating extremely relevant quotations into the text. I also think the addition of a context section is imperative given all that has occurred politically since the play's release and believe you did an excellent job summarizing these events within the context of the play.

Candidly, I do not have all that much to critique regarding your existing content but given the relevant nature of this topic and volume of news surrounding politics today I believe you could make some very strong additions to the already existing "Critical Response" section. I do also agree with Palmer in that the lead section is certainly lacking in content and could at least use an extra sentence or two.

Response to Peer Reviews
I found the feedback from my peers to be very helpful in the editing process. Palmer's notes on some unclear wording were very useful in identifying where I may have gone blind to my language in the editing process, as can often happen when I stare at one chunk of text for too long. Also, I have added to the Lead section as per Jack and Palmer's suggestion. I plan to also add a few more sentences in the "Critical Response" section as well. Overall, I appreciate the ability to have fresh eyes look over my work, and will be implementing my reviewers' suggestions. Gkhaner (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Grace