User talk:JClanton12/sandbox

Schuette note
One small, quick note: I wonder if Reception and Criticism is the best heading for that section. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Evaluating:

1. The article does a good job of using an appropriate tone throughout, as well as using language which is clear and concise. I was impressed by how well the language flowed together, as it can be difficult to achieve this when collaborating with another person on an article. As a reader, I saw no change in language or tone, which is good.

2. The only changes I would recommend would be making sure anywhere that has information pulled from a source is cited, because as I noted in the rubric, some sections have information that is seemingly taken from a source, but is not cited. This would improve the article because it would ensure that all information is accounted for, and doesn't seem like the editor's opinion or independent research. I don't think you need to change anything as far as organization or language throughout your article, as that is very strong.

3. Again, the most important change would just be adding in those citations.

4. Something I really liked about your article that I think I could use for my own is how you link related words or phrases in your article to their respective Wikipedia page. As I am writing about a novel, I think this could be useful to link the author, as well as characters in the novel throughout my text. I also think this is helpful for the reader in expanding and navigating their research on Wikipedia.

Demetrarain (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay's Peer Review
This article does a great job of seamlessly synthesizing new material with the information that was already on the page. I found the information in the reception and criticism section about the research done to study the effectiveness of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" fable to be interesting and well paraphrased. The article does a good job of maintaining a neutral tone and synthesizing information.

I would suggest reading through the article again because I noticed a few sentences that could be phrased differently to improve clarity and flow. The first section is synthesized well with the material that already existed, but I would see if you could possibly do that for the other sections. I think blending your work with what the previous editors had already created would make for an even stronger article.

In the section titled "The Fable", references 1 and 2 are versions of the story on the internet. However, you make a claim in the first sentence that the boy cries wolf three or four times depending on the version of the story. You might want to cite this information using another source because citations 1 and 2 do not provide that information.

The most important thing to do to improve the article would be looking at sentence structure. You could revise just a few sentences to greatly improve clarity and fluency. I would also suggest looking through your article again to see where you could possibly state your point in fewer words. I noticed a few sections, one being the adult reception section, that had introductory sentences that were somewhat vague and could include more information. I also agree with Dr. Schuette that you should consider changing the reception and criticism section title to something that better represents the material you have included.

I really liked the section about the research study done in regards to the fable and I'm wondering if I can find anything mildly similar for my own article because I think it adds a lot to the piece and makes it more interesting.

Lkobus (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)