User talk:Hrithik.saride/sandbox

Hrithik's Evaluation: - make sure to include a key so that I know what's been added and where the original text is - "After the occurrence" is a awkward. Instead, you can word it like this: "After 9/11, a time when widespread coverage..." - I would also change the "at the end of 2004" part because you wrote "after 9/11" at the beginning - "conceived" is also an awkward word and I suggest changing that as well - I don't think "following the events of 9/11" is necessary because it was already stated at the beginning

Overall Takeaway: I think the suggestions you've made to clean up the wording are very helpful and definitely improve the article's quality. I think that there's still some room for improvement, as there is still some awkward wording in the "Publication History" section.

Again, I'm not sure of whether you wrote the non-underlined sections, but I'm assuming you did. So here's some feedback on that: - make sure you cite the information you're including (ie where did you find the genre?) - Plot Summary: Again, the word "conceived" is very awkward and now becoming repetitive. "Sprawling" is also an awkward word and it isn't neutral. But overall, you have some really great information here! Just make sure to cite it. - Critical Reception and Distinctions: There are some grammatical errors (ie between "one of a kind" and "Neel Mukherjee". It also seems that a lot of these reviews are simply listed, one after the other. I would either synthesize the information and describe commonalities between the reviews rather than listing them all, or just make them into bulletin points. That would make it a little easier to read. In general, I think Wikipedia users are looking for a brief summary of what the response has been so maybe just order the information into "positive reviews" and "negative reviews" to help direct readers.

Sahil's evaluation: Hi Hrithik, I was a little confused with how much of what was in the sandbox was additions, and if it was only the sentences in the publication history or if the other sections will be edited too. I agree with your changes in the plot summary though. I think the additions add more context to what lead to the book, and essentially provides a "background" section for the page. I also agree with taking out the section of the publication history about the Arabic calligraphy and the nine chapters' visual style as it does not seem to add much of value to the section.

Hrithik.saride (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Analyzing Peer Feedback I received a great deal of feedback on improving the clarity of the article, especially with respect to using more concise language and grammar. Overall, the peer feedback seems perceptive of the changes that I had in mind, and I plan to use their additional feedback to further develop my proposed changes to the Wiki page. I plan to greatly revise the plot summary section and publication history section.