User talk:Hannahso608/sandbox

Alfred's peer review
•	Does the writer employ concise, plain language? Are any sentences awkward or lengthy? Are there any weasel words? What revisions or proofreading to individual sentences would you recommend? I think that you do a great job at using plain language to get your point across to the reader and I think that the reader will be able to understand all of the points that you added to the article. I do believe that one sentence is a bit too lengthy in your edit. "Jaffe suggests that the depiction of a diverse student body, in regards to color, ethnicity, size, and sexual orientation in the novel helps to normalize the process of coming out, as it creates an understanding that everyone, regardless of appearance or background, experiences similar challenges with self-identity. " I think that it is a bit long and could be shortened to get the same point across within the article. I do not believe that you used many weasel words because you attributed the facts to the source in which you got it from, but I would double check. I would recommend that you shorten the sentence I included above to make sure that you do not have run-on sentences and make sure that your other sentences are concise as well. Other than that, I think you did a great job adding new information.

•	Does each sentence convey a factual claim? Is each sentence cited? One citation per statement is the minimum expectation. No original research should be included. Each sentence I observed does convey a factual claim in the article. However, I do believe that you could have cited more in your edits. Make sure that you add a citation within each sentence that you take from a literary scholar or source, such as Abate's article. I believe that it is better to overcite in this scenario than to undercite.

•	Does each sentence attribute viewpoints to the people who hold them/the source? Does the writer need to add signal phrases? I think that each sentence that you constructed from your edits does attribute the viewpoints to the people who hold them. You do a great job stating that "Abate things..." or "_____ believes that..." rather than using generalizations such as "Many people believe that...". I do not think you need to add signal phrases, as you did a good job with this section.

•	If writer has composed an entire paragraph, does it flow logically? Is anything unclear to you? Although you did compose a few sentences at a time, I do not believe that anything was unclear. I think that given the context in your Google Docs, it all makes sense to me. The flow works with each literary scholar that you cited and I think you did a good job bringing these new edits together to improve the article.

•	Do you need more information or clarifications to understand the drafted materials? I did not need more information or clarifications to understand the material that you proposed to add. I think you did a good job explaining everyone's viewpoints in the sources and any reader would be able to understand the contentions that many people hold that you presented in this draft.

•	If the drafted materials is to be included in the lead-in section, review relevant Wikipedia guidelines. None of this information is in the lead-in section.

•	Suggest changes that create a formal tone. According to Wikipedia, here are a few words to watch out for: legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique; notably, it should be noted, arguably, interestingly, essentially, actually, clearly, of course, without a doubt, happily, tragically, aptly, fortunately, unfortunately, untimely; supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called, some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said…. I think that some of the words you used to start your sentences seem to sound like some of these words that Wikipedia does not want in their articles. For example, you use "Equally troubling is..." in your edits, which I think presents a bias, although it may be from a source. I think it would be better to start it with Abate to make sure readers know it is not your own opinion. Other than that, I think you did a great job avoiding these phrases. Apolizzotto4 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)