User talk:Irene.elias85/sandbox

Peer review
Hi Irene, I couldn't find the link to peer review the article, so I'm leaving a couple of suggestions on your talk page instead! I've looked at what you're working on in your sandbox, and it's coming along really well! One suggestion I have is to make subsections for each type of one-person show that would allow for better flow within the article. Currently there's a lot of information in that section, and I feel like that makes it harder to digest. Also, in the lead section - linking to the wikipedia pages that exist for "autobiographical creations, comedy acts, novel adaptations, vaudeville, poetry, music, and dance" could be a useful addition. Jre1991 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Irene! This is late, and I'm sorry, but I wasn't sure if I should give feedback or not since it wasn't listed on the request for feedback page. My main thought is that you might want to go back and edit for clarity. I'm thinking specifically about the flow of things like: "So it is a style of performance that has been with us for generations..." - it's unclear what "it" is. You use the term "platform performer" but I don't know what that means. "the number and variety of professional solo performances presented throughout the country had grown large" - odd sentence structure. "By the 1960s, the term performance art became popular and involved any number of performance acts or happenings, as they were known." - how does this relate specifically to solo performance? I wonder if you wouldn't be better served by adding a section for a list of Solo Performers, rather than listing a few at the top. Maybe put them each in separate categories, ie comedy, performance art, etc.

I hope this is helpful and not too overwhelming! Lilliemer8519 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on bibliography
Hi, Irene.elias85! Some feedback on your preliminary bibliography: overall, you seem to have a solid grasp of MLA citation, although there are a few things I want you to note. First, don't use all caps in titles, even if that's how they appeared in the original -- it's difficult to read all caps, and the goal is to help your reader understand and perhaps even track down the sources you've used. Make sure that all dates are formatted DAY MONTH YEAR, e.g. 30 Sep. 2017. Also, take a closer look at the URLs you included with your citations. You will see that you have copy/pasted some extraneous parts of the link, including your login info and/or the college where you accessed the source (e.g. Marist College). When saving the URL for your bibliography, be careful to include a URL that *anyone* can use, not just those who have access to a specific subscription at a university (etc.). Cut anything that seems non-essential, and test it to see if it still works. Experiment until you find the most streamlined address. Even better than a URL, though, is a DOI (in which case you don't have to include a URL at all) -- as you did in your first citation. Thanks and let me know if you have any Qs! Amy E Hughes (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on bibliography, spring 2018
Hi, Irene.elias85! Some feedback on your preliminary bibliography: overall, you've done an excellent job. Just a couple of things: titles of things (book titles, article titles, etc.) should be set in mixed-case, with initial caps for every word except prepositions. For example: Acting Solo: Roadmap to Success. Also, you should include an access date for electronic sources (like web pages or newspaper articles), because web sources are often more malleable than print sources. See here for examples: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/ Thanks for your attention to detail with this and for improving since your bibliography last semester! Amy E Hughes (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)