User talk:Jdb337/sandbox

Alex's Peer Review
Suggestions for the Reception and Awards section:

- The first paragraph is good for content, however the flow of the last few sentences is a little confusing for a reader - the last sentence (not the information you added) has a strange flow to it that makes choppy and hard to fully understand --> maybe find a way to re-locate your addition to better fit that sentence - the additions and explanations of the awards is very good in terms of content and citations - there are a few instances of passive voice that you might want to change (i.e. "Drama was named one of the best graphic novels by the Washington Post" and "Drama is also placed...") - maybe change the order of the awards so that they are chronological by year - other than that, your additions in this section seem to work very well

Suggestions for the Controversy section:

- the first sentence you add needs a citation - also, I think the ending to the sentence could be altered a little ("since there was no coverage on it" could be strengthened with different word choice) - the other additions in the first paragraph work really well, especially the additions of the dates - the addition regarding Common Sense Media sounds like it could use a direct quote if you have one that fits that section - in the Abate additions, for the last sentence maybe put the "according to Abate" at the beginning of the sentence rather than at the end to improve flow for the reader - in the last paragraph, the additions could use a couple of quotes, especially at the points where you say "Telgemeier said" and phrases like that - other than mixing in a few quotations in the last paragraph, I feel like the additions really work in terms of fixing content gaps in the article

- overall I think you do a good job of filling content gaps in the article, as well as adding significant information to previously included sentences in the article - I think that you could add a couple more quotations to improve the legitimacy of the article, but other than that, I feel like you did a really good job

Hannah's Peer Review Hannahso608 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The language that you use is concise, and easy to understand. I feel that the sentence "In response to backlash for portraying gay characters in a children's book, Telgemeier responded by saying that when an individual is young sexuality may not play a major role in their lives, but it always remains a part of their identity and that she doesn't attempt to force her viewpoints on anyone" may be a bit long, and can perhaps be broken up into two sentences instead. The part about Telgemeier's refusal to force her viewpoints can be included in a separate sentence.

The only weasel words that I found are in the sentence "Drama has received largely positive reviews by book critics throughout the years," which I would consider deleting altogether, since the next few sentences mention all the awards that Drama has won, which conveys that Drama has been critically acclaimed.

I would include a citation for the sentence "However, the details regarding the ban [at Chapel Hill Elementary School] are limited since there was no coverage on it." For the Washington Post article, maybe check to see if the library has access to the article? Otherwise, all the sentences are well-cited, and signal phrases are well-used.

The content that you added flows logically and makes sense.

For a more formal tone, I would remove the contraction from the sentence, "In response to backlash for portraying gay characters in a children's book, Telgemeier responded by saying that when an individual is young sexuality may not play a major role in their lives, but it always remains a part of their identity and that she doesn't attempt to force her viewpoints on anyone."

Overall, I think you did a great job adding more specific information to the article, especially for the "Reception and Awards" section.